Case studies

#1 - Marketing claim conflict with Nutrition Facts Panel

Reason for label revision: General brand refresh of PDP and two flavors converting from dairy seasoning to vegan seasoning.

Label Error: The row for Cholesterol in the Nutrition Facts Panel of the product with dairy seasonings was originally 5mg and 2%DV. The updated label maintained those values on the Nutrition Facts Panel. But, when the formula changed to the vegan seasoning, the removal of the dairy ingredients meant the Cholesterol levels dropped to 0mg and 0%DV. Those new values were not updated in the new Nutrition Facts Panel.

Consumer Impact: Consumers wrote to the company inquiring how a Vegan-marketed product could have Cholesterol while not listing animal-based Ingredients (cholesterol only comes from animal products). The consumer messages is actually how the error was first discovered.

Label Correction: Because the labeling error was a transcription error and there was no threat to consumer safety, the brand decided to update the labels as quickly as possible and dispose of the incorrect labels. New labels were printed and in production within 8 weeks.

Supplier Impact: The brand instructed the manufacturing facility to dispose of the old, incorrect labels. Unfortunately, the labels were not recycled or disposed of as directed. In an unfortunate sequence of mistakes, the manufacturer used the old, incorrect packaging for more production runs and shipped the finished product into the marketplace, resulting in further consumer complaints and questions.

#2 - Plant-based Protein claim error

Reason for label revision: Plaintiff lawsuit over Protein claims. Plaintiff claimed the product did not contain the amount of Protein indicated on the Principal Display Panel and Nutrition Facts.

Label Error: The brand made a Protein claim on the principal display panel and did not list a %DV for Protein in the Nutrition Facts Panel. Because no %DV was listed or calculated using the PDCAAS method, the Protein content was misleading to consumers.

Consumer Impact: Misleading to consumers. Possible harm to consumer trust and brand affinity.

Lawsuit Outcome: Because the labeling error was true as alleged by the Plaintiff, the brand negotiated a settlement and agreed to update the labeling. Total cost of the legal fees and settlement were ~$100,000. The brand completed PDCAAS scoring for Protein and updated fourteen labels.

#3 - Missing trademark symbol

Reason for label revision: Change brand look and feel on labels as well as focus on attributes relevant to consumers.

Label Error: The brand did not use any R or TM marks on the labels to signify trademark activity on the brand name and other elements.

Suggested fix: Add TM to the brand name to signify the brand had filed for a trademark and intended to pursue trademark registration and the assorted protections of registered marks.

Outcome: The brand chose not to add trademark symbols to the label because the Marketing team and CEO didn’t like the way the added symbols looked on the labels. The brand had to spend valuable resources defending one of the marks when another company applied for the same mark. Not having the trademark symbols on the package weakened the brand’s defense and cost it more money and time to defend itself.