Prairie Grove Woman Sues Ocean Spray For Sugar Label; Case Exceeds $5 Million

This is an archived article and the information in the article may be outdated. Please look at the time stamp on the story to see when it was last updated.

A Prairie Grove woman is suing Ocean Spray, saying the company falsely claims it adds no sugar to its cranberry juice.

Breanna Center filed the lawsuit in Washington County Circuit Court on May 22. The case was moved to federal court Thursday, according to court records.

Center filed the lawsuit on behalf of herself and others who have bought Ocean Spray’s cranberry juice with the “no sugar added” label. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages from Ocean Spray.

A company representative told the court the case reaches above $5 million because of the number of people who have bought the juice. Cases above $5 million are typically forwarded to federal court.

The lawsuit states Ocean Spray’s 100 Percent Cranberry Juice is mislabeled and thus breaks Arkansas state law. Although the front of the bottle states the juice has “no sugar added,” the product contains concentrated fruit juice, according to the suit.

The lawsuit cites the Arkansas law that states the terms “no added sugar,” “without added sugar,” or “no sugar added” may be used on products only if the product does not contain concentrated fruit juice, among other restrictions.

“The labels on the Ocean Spray product—aside from being unlawful under Arkansas law—are also misleading, deceptive, unfair and fraudulent,” the lawsuit states. “The very face that (Ocean Spray) sold the illegal Ocean Spray product and did not disclose this fact to consumers is a deceptive act in and of itself.”

Center is represented by Kenneth Shemin of the Shemin Law Firm out of Rogers, while Ocean Spray is being defended by Marshall Ney out of Rogers, according to court records.


  • Ron Snider

    This is insane, just someone wanting to get free money on the backs of all other consumers.

    Read the nutritional label on the back to see the sugar content.

    Yes, the “no sugar added”, sounds like sugar free, but read the back.

    If I was the federal judge, I’d make ocean spray donate $100,000 to an Arkansas food bank and give each ” victim ” $1.00 and each side pays their own legal bills.

    What ever happened to common sense and decency?

  • Bob Collins

    Yes, I have a bottle of this in my refrigerator right now; will I sue them? No. I’m not stupid or greedy enough to punish a company for finally making something healthy enough to drink. Idiots.

  • Angie

    What an idiot?!?!? That’s why we are where we are and the fact that a judge will accept that in his court, another idiot!

  • matt

    When did sugar free fruits become available? My God there is sugar in a cranberry!!! I love this product mixed with a nice vodka. Is there any sugar in vodka? I might have a lawsuit.

  • Gary Trembly

    I have a bottle in my fridge right now! I’m gonna drink up the evidence before getting caught with it!

  • Richard S. Drake

    I’m not too sure you can say Healthy” and “sugar” in the same sentence with a straight face.
    If folks here are incapable of understanding that honesty in labeling is important, our society is in worse shape than I thought.

  • Alan

    It’s against the law for a reason since concentrated fruit juice is nothing but processed, flavored fructose syrup. A serving of fruit juice containing concentrates can have as much sugar as a can of soda. Google it. If I’d known it was against the law, I would have sued a long time ago.

  • Ron Snider

    Regardless of what is on the front of the liable, the back liable is correct. “No sugar added” isn’t saying sugar free and it doesn’t mean that the drink has no sugar, it can mean that ingredients have been added that already contain sugars, it is just that Ocean Spray didn’t add extra sugar. Read the back nutritional liable. It is always right. Just like if a food/drink says “Diet”, it doesn’t mean it is calorie free. Read the liable.

  • Sarah 300

    Thank you Channel Five.
    Someone was using my name. I would never bring a Bush into the White House again and I am not sold on Clinton either. Let’s see what the primaries bring. The most important thing is to vote in November.

  • objectivefodder

    I support righteousness. Sadly, promoting, indorsing and acting on legal litigation is the only way to get big corporation’s attention when dealing with deceptive and misleading advertising and labeling. I smell jealousy and envy amongst the commentators in this forum. Most of you are peeved you didn’t think of it first. She found the Gold vein, now leave her alone and let her have her claim. If it doesn’t get thrown out of court, I’ll be surprised, but let justice and legal recourse with the courts address illegalities regarding compliance with Arkansas law, which is apparently the alleged violated. If there’s a breach and broken law being violated, let it be addressed in a manner which brings corrective results. Whether or not she so-called profits from this remains to be seen, but I should imagine, as it is being obviously proposed in a class action lawsuit, everyone knows there will be little more than coupons ultimately awarded anyway. The lawyers will make bank, perhaps as they should because they’re doing the legal work. You animals know that, so stop bitching. Let the label be made right and fairness in trade and commerce fairly argued. Allow for correction by the company as they take issue with labeling and nutrition. Let them respectfully be given a chance to be in compliance and publically apologize as well as correct. If they are indeed in violation, it will come to pass that they make the right choice. Justice will have been served for the consumer. We all know excessive Sugar intake is a problem causing numerous health issues.

  • Tonya

    I believe the law is that as long you don’t add any sugar to your product then you can say there is no added sugar. That doesn’t mean that you didn’t add something that already has sugar in it.

Comments are closed.