Brownlie Brothers guilty of misleading juice claims: fined $35,000
Published05 Apr 2004
Hawkes Bay juice company Brownlie Brothers Limited has been fined a total of $35,000 after pleading guilty to breaching the Fair Trading Act in relation to misleading labelling of its Simply Squeezed and Supreme Orange Juice products.
Issued 5 April 2004
Hawkes Bay juice company Brownlie Brothers Limited has been fined a total of $35,000 after pleading guilty to breaching the Fair Trading Act in relation to misleading labelling of its Simply Squeezed and Supreme Orange Juice products.
In his reserved judgment released today, Justice Clapham commented that this was a committed endeavour in a difficult supply situation to at least maintain market share. "In this sense it was wilful activity."
The case was part of a Commerce Commission crackdown on misleading advertising in the juice industry, which saw eleven companies investigated by the Commission early last year. The investigations resulted in two prosecutions - against Freshly Squeezed Limited and Brownlie Brothers - and undertakings by five companies to make changes to their labels or website content.
Commission Chair Paula Rebstock said the Commission had prosecuted Brownlie Brothers for misleading representations relating to the freshness, content and origin in relation to its juice products.
"For both the Simply Squeezed and Supreme Orange Juice products, the overall impression created by the labelling and marketing of the products was that they were made from New Zealand and/or Australian fruit, when in fact both products contained imported Brazilian concentrate - up to 30 percent in the case of Simply Squeezed and up to 70 percent in the case of Supreme," said Ms Rebstock.
"In the Commission's view, because of the nature of the products and the premiums that consumers pay for pure, fresh and squeezed products, it is imperative that representations as to the nature, content and manufacturing process of orange juice be of the highest levels of accuracy."
"Businesses need to make sure that the overall impression given by labelling does not mislead consumers or misrepresent key components of a product," said Ms Rebstock.
"A consumer should be able to make an informed decision based on an overall impression - not through having to conduct a comparative analysis of information contained in the fine print."
Background
The Commission undertook a number of investigations into the advertising practices of juice companies at the beginning of last year.
In the course of the Commission's investigations, the Commission found that the key breaches related to:
misleading representations with respect to "100%" juice - that is, claiming to be 100% juice when they contained concentrate;
using the term "squeezed" in a manner that implied freshness when the products concerned were made from blended juices (i.e. juice plus concentrate);
implying that the product was New Zealand made, when that was not the case.
In December 2003, Freshly Squeezed Limited was fined $10,000 after pleading guilty to making misleading claims about the freshness, content and place of origin of its Arano and Fresh Selection juices.
