{{Short description|American pomegranate and beverage company}} {{Infobox company | name = POM Wonderful, LLC | logo = File:Pom Wonderful logo.png | type = Privately held company | parent = The Wonderful Company | foundation = 2002 | founder = Stewart and Lynda Rae Resnick | location = Los Angeles, California, United States | key_people = Derrick Miller (President) | industry = Foods | products = Fruit juices, tea, fresh pomegranate arils | homepage = [http://www.pomwonderful.com/ POM Wonderful website] }} '''POM Wonderful''', LLC is a private company which sells an eponymous brand of pomegranate juices, pomegranate arils, and teas. It was founded in 2002 by the billionaire industrial agriculture couple Stewart and Lynda Rae Resnick.<ref name="rubies">{{cite book|last= Resnick|first=Lynda|authorlink=Lynda Resnick|title = Rubies in the Orchard|publisher=Doubleday|year= 2009|isbn= 978-0-385-52578-7|url-access = registration|url= https://archive.org/details/rubiesinorchardh00resn}}</ref> POM Wonderful is one of several food brands held within The Wonderful Company owned and managed by the Resnicks.
==Products== thumb|right|alt=Grocery store shelf with bottles of dark juice|Bottles of POM Wonderful juice. The company's main product is pomegranate juice, which is sold in a trademark "double-bulb" bottle with the product name, POM, featured in capital letters where the O is substituted by a heart symbol.<ref name="pom">{{cite web |url=https://www.pomwonderful.com/products|title=POM Wonderful products|publisher=POM Wonderful|date=2025|access-date=26 January 2025}}</ref> The company also manufactures blended juice beverages, such as pomegranate juice mixed with juices of blueberry, cranberry, cherry, mango or tangerine, bottled tea, and fresh pomegranate arils.<ref name=pom/>
In 2017, POM Wonderful acquired the pomegranate distributor Ruby Fresh.<ref>{{Cite web|title=POM Wonderful acquires Ruby Fresh| work = Packer| accessdate = 2018-09-04| url = https://www.thepacker.com/article/pom-wonderful-acquires-ruby-fresh}}</ref>
===The fruit=== thumb|Pomegranate The brand name "POM Wonderful" refers to the "Wonderful" cultigen of pomegranate grown in the central and southern San Joaquin Valley of Central California.<ref name="Guardian"> {{cite news |url=https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2005/dec/11/foodanddrink3 |title=Pomegranate Power |first=Andrew |last=Purvis |accessdate=2008-09-02 |date=2005-12-11 | work=The Guardian | location=London}} </ref> It is the leading commercial variety in California, being well-suited for juicing with its soft seeds, high water content, and wine-like flavor.<ref name="fruit facts">{{cite web |url=http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/pomegranate.html|title=Pomegranate Fruit Facts|accessdate=2010-03-04 |year=1997|archive-date=2012-06-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120619172009/http://www.crfg.org/pubs/ff/pomegranate.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> POM branded products are produced from fruit obtained from their own corporate orchards, and other orchards in the same area. The company employs a proprietary process in their own facilities to mechanically extract juice for various pomegranate-based products.<ref name="Ag Alert">{{cite web|url=http://www.cfbf.com/agalert/AgAlertStory.cfm?ID=722&ck=C8ED21DB4F678F3B13B9D5EE16489088|title=Consumers develop a passion for all things pomegranate|accessdate=2008-09-02|first=Tracy|last=Sellers|date=2006-12-06|archive-date=2008-03-06|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080306081821/http://www.cfbf.com/agalert/AgAlertStory.cfm?ID=722&ck=C8ED21DB4F678F3B13B9D5EE16489088|url-status=dead}}</ref>
==Legal actions== ===FTC cease and desist order=== On February 23, 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) informed the company in a warning letter that POM Wonderful was "[promoting] (POM Wonderful 100% Pomegranate Juice) for conditions that cause the product to be a drug".<ref name="FDA2010">{{cite web |author=Roberta C. Wagner |date=23 February 2010 |title=Warning letter: POM Wonderful |url=https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2010/ucm202785.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170112194856/https://www.fda.gov/ICECI/EnforcementActions/WarningLetters/2010/ucm202785.htm |archive-date=12 January 2017 |accessdate=17 April 2019 |publisher=Inspections, Compliance, Enforcement, and Criminal Investigations, U.S. Food and Drug Administration}}</ref><ref name="Pom Illegal Claims">{{cite web | author = Starling S | title = FDA says Pom Wonderful antioxidant claims not so wonderful | work = NutraIngredients.com | url = http://www.nutraingredients-usa.com/Regulation/FDA-says-Pom-Wonderful-antioxidant-claims-not-so-wonderful/?c=7InNqGv0Ajf%2BGsoljaV0RA%3D%3D | date = March 3, 2010 | accessdate = March 6, 2010}}</ref> POM's labeling as a food was also criticized in the letter due to a product claim of being "full of antioxidants called phytochemicals" and having "uniquely high levels of powerful antioxidants".<ref name="FDA2010"/>
Such nutrient content claims on food must have a scientifically validated Dietary Reference Intake value and the names of such nutrients included.<ref name="FDA2010"/> According to the FDA, simply using the terms "antioxidants" and "phytochemicals" is not specific enough for food nutrient labeling requirements because phytochemicals in pomegranate juice have not yet been defined with actual physiological properties in humans.<ref name="FDA2010"/>
FDA contended that if the manufacturer desires to market its products with claims for the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease, the product is subject to the typical scientific rigor of the drug approval process to achieve such claims.<ref name="FDA2010"/><ref name="FDA Approval Process">{{cite web|url=https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143534.htm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090619153941/http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm143534.htm |url-status=dead |archive-date=June 19, 2009 |accessdate=3 June 2024|title=The FDA's Drug Review Process: Ensuring Drugs Are Safe and Effective |date=24 November 2017|publisher=US Food and Drug Administration}}</ref>
In September 2010, the Federal Trade Commission issued an administrative complaint against POM Wonderful saying it had made "false and unsubstantiated claims that their products will prevent or treat heart disease, prostate cancer, and erectile dysfunction."<ref>{{cite web | last=Federal Trade Commission | title=FTC Complaint Charges Deceptive Advertising by POM Wonderful | publisher=Federal Trade Commission | date=2010-09-27 | url=http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2010/09/pom.shtm | accessdate = 2010-11-20}}</ref>
POM is quoted as responding that "all statements made in connection with POM products are true ... and as strong advocates of honest labeling and fair advertising, we are looking forward to working with the agency to resolve this matter."<ref name="FDA Cracks Down"> {{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/business/04food.html|title=F.D.A. Cracks Down on Health Claims by Nestlé and Others|accessdate=2010-03-04|work=New York Times| first=William | last=Neuman| date=2010-03-03}}</ref>
On May 22, 2012, Chief Administrative Law Judge Michael Chappell ruled after a hearing that the company's claims were deceptive<ref>"Judge: POM deceptively marketed juice"; Associated Press, May 22, 2012 [http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=news/national_world&id=8671289&rss=rss-wabc-article-8671289 link to report on ABC news]{{dead link|date=July 2024|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}</ref> and issued a cease and desist order effective for 20 years.<ref name = "NYTRuling" >[https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/business/media/judge-rules-pom-wonderfuls-advertising-is-misleading.html "Judge Says Pom Wonderful’s Advertising Is Misleading"] article by Stephanie Strom in ''The New York Times'' May 21, 2012</ref><blockquote>The greater weight of the persuasive expert testimony demonstrates that there is insufficient competent and reliable scientific evidence to substantiate claims that the Pom products treat, prevent or reduce the risk of erectile dysfunction or that they are clinically proven to do so.<ref name = "NYTRuling" /></blockquote><blockquote>[POM Wonderful] shall not make any representation, in any manner, expressly or by implication, including through the use of a product name, endorsement, depiction, illustration, trademark or trade name, about the health benefits, performance or efficacy of any covered product, unless the representation is nonmisleading.<ref name = "NYTRuling" /></blockquote>
The May 22, 2012 Administrative Law Judge upheld two of POM's positions: (1) any FDA pre-approval requirement "would constitute unnecessary overreaching" and that (2) more stringent double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies were not necessary.<ref name="US FTC Office of Administrative Law Judges Docket No. 9344 In the Matter of Pom Wonderful LLC and Roll Global LLC, et al Initial Decision dated May 17, 2012">{{cite web|url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9344/120521pomdecision.pdf|title=US FTC Office of Administrative Law Judges Docket No. 9344 In the Matter of Pom Wonderful LLC and Roll Global LLC, et al Initial Decision dated May 17, 2012 |date=27 September 2010 |accessdate= 2012-05-29 |publisher=U.S. Federal Trade Commission Office of Administrative Law Judges}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |title=Why POM Wonderful Can Celebrate FTC Judge's Ruling in Advertising Case |first=Nicole |last=Kardell |url=http://www.natlawreview.com/article/why-pom-wonderful-can-celebrate-ftc-judge-s-ruling-advertising-case |newspaper=The National Law Review|date=May 24, 2012 |accessdate=28 May 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url=http://ftcbeat.com/2012/05/23/why-pom-wonderful-can-celebrate-ftc-judges-ruling-in-advertising-case/ |title=Why POM Wonderful Can Celebrate FTC Judge's Ruling in Advertising Case |publisher=FTC Beat |accessdate=23 May 2012 }}{{Dead link|date=July 2025 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>
In January 2015, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld most of the FTC's 2010 order.<ref>"POM Wonderful loses bid to tout health benefits in drink ads"; Reuters, January 30, 2015 [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pomwonderful-ftc-idUSKBN0L31TL20150130]</ref><ref>"Pom Wonderful loses appeal of FTC's deceptive advertising ruling"; ''The Los Angeles Times'', January 30, 2015 [http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-pom-wonderful-20150130-story.html]</ref> The appellate court said that many of POM's ads "mischaracterized the scientific evidence concerning the health benefits of Pom's products with regard to those diseases."<ref>''Pom Wonderful v. FTC; United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, January 30, 2015 [https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/pomwonderfulftcappeals.pdf] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150906185101/https://consumermediallc.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/pomwonderfulftcappeals.pdf |date=2015-09-06 }}''</ref>
In May 2016, the FTC and a U.S. federal court decided that POM cannot make health claims in its advertising, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined POM's request to review the court ruling that upheld the FTC decision.<ref name="ftc">{{cite web|title=Statement of FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez Regarding Supreme Court's Decision Not to Review POM Wonderful Case|url=https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2016/05/statement-ftc-chairwoman-edith-ramirez-regarding-supreme-courts|publisher=Bureau of Consumer Protection, US Federal Trade Commission|accessdate=21 April 2017|date=2 May 2016}}</ref><ref name="forbes">{{cite web|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/chloesorvino/2016/05/02/the-verdict-pom-wonderful-misled-its-customers-a-blow-to-its-billionaire-owners/#53b8da454b94|title=The Verdict: POM Wonderful Misled Its Customers, A Blow To Its Billionaire Owners|author=Sorvino, Chloe|work=Forbes|date=2 May 2016|accessdate=21 April 2017}}</ref> FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez agreed with the Supreme Court's decision by stating: "I am pleased that the POM Wonderful case has been brought to a successful conclusion. The outcome of this case makes clear that companies like POM making serious health claims about food and nutritional supplement products must have rigorous scientific evidence to back them up. Consumers deserve no less."<ref name=ftc/><ref name=forbes/>
===Minute Maid lawsuit === {{see also|POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.}} From 2008 through 2014, POM litigated against The Coca-Cola Company's subsidiary, Minute Maid.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/business/2014-06-12/court-rules-pom-wonderful-dispute-coke|title=Court rules for Pom Wonderful in dispute with Coke|publisher=Associated Press and The Augusta Chronicle|author=Hananel S|date=12 June 2014|accessdate=17 June 2014|archive-date=31 August 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140831012947/http://chronicle.augusta.com/news/business/2014-06-12/court-rules-pom-wonderful-dispute-coke|url-status=dead}}</ref> The lawsuit claimed that the name of the product called Minute Maid Pomegranate Blueberry Flavored Blend of five juices was misleading because it contained 0.3% pomegranate juice and 99.4% apple juice.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelbobelian/2014/04/22/supreme-court-asked-to-referee-dispute-between-coca-cola-and-pom/ |title=In POM v. Coca-Cola, Supreme Court Could Shake Up Food Labeling |work=Forbes |date= |accessdate=2014-06-13}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|last=Bartz |first=Diane |url= https://news.yahoo.com/u-top-court-questions-coca-cola-over-fruit-182508129--finance.html |title=U.S. top court asks if Coca-Cola juice label is misleading |publisher=Yahoo News |date=April 21, 2014 |accessdate=2014-06-13}}</ref> The case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided in June 2014 that a lawsuit for false advertising claims could be pursued against Coca-Cola, saying "Competitors may bring Lanham Act claims like POM's challenging food and beverage labels regulated by the FDCA."<ref>{{cite web|url= https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-761_6k47.pdf | title= POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co.| date= June 12, 2014| publisher= U.S. Supreme Court | accessdate= 2014-06-13}}</ref> Legal analysts anticipate several more years of litigation on issues not argued in the Supreme Court, such as cause and magnitude of financial or brand injury to POM Wonderful resulting from the Minute Maid product.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.beveragedaily.com/Regulation-Safety/Attorney-First-round-to-POM-at-the-Supreme-Court-but-don-t-expect-the-floodgates-to-open/?c=7InNqGv0Ajc2exLgWwHHlg%3D%3D|title=Attorney: First round to POM at the Supreme Court, but don't expect the floodgates to open ...|author=Watson E|publisher=BeverageDaily.com by William Reed Business Media|date=17 June 2014|accessdate=17 June 2014}}</ref>
==''The Greatest Movie Ever Sold''== The company, product, executives and owner Lynda Resnick were featured in a 2011 documentary about product placement, marketing and advertising in movies and TV shows. The film was entitled ''POM Wonderful Presents: The Greatest Movie Ever Sold''. POM agreed to pay one million dollars (subject to certain conditions) for "above-the-title" billing on the film.<ref>[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1743720/ The Greatest Movie Ever Sold], film by Morgan Spurlock (2011)</ref>
==References== {{reflist}}
==External reading== * {{cite web|url=http://www.ftc.gov/os/adjpro/d9344/120521pomdecision.pdf|author=Office of Administrative Law Judges, D. Michael Chappell|title=Docket No. 9344, In the Matter of Pom Wonderful LLC and Roll Global LLC, and Stewart A. Resnick, Lynda Rae Resnick, and Matthew Tupper, Respondents|publisher=Federal Trade Commission|date=May 17, 2012|accessdate=22 May 2012}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Pom Wonderful}} Category:Juice brands Category:Food manufacturers of the United States Category:Food product brands Category:Pomegranate products Category:The Wonderful Company Category:American companies established in 2002 Category:2002 establishments in California Category:Privately held companies based in Los Angeles