Reasonable Consumers Know That Crunchberries Aren't Real, Rules Judge

In the landmark legal ruling, a judge has dismissed the suit of Janine Sugawara against PepsiCo that had charged that Crunchberries are misleading to the consumer.  The plaintiff in Sugawara v. Crunch brought claims for fraud, breach of warranty, and transgression of California’s Unfair Competition Law.  Why?

According to the complaint, Sugawara and other consumers were misled not only by the use of the word “berries” in the name, but also by the front of the box, which features the product’s namesake, Cap’n Crunch, aggressively “thrusting a spoonful of ‘Crunchberries’ at the prospective buyer.”  Plaintiff claimed that this message was reinforced by other marketing representing the product as a “combination of Crunch biscuits and colorful red, purple, teal and green berries.”

And yet, inside the box, no crunchberry fruit is to be found.  Here’s what the judge had to say:  

In this case . . . while the challenged packaging contains the word “berries” it does so only in conjunction with the descriptive term “crunch.” This Court is not aware of, nor has Plaintiff alleged the existence of, any actual fruit referred to as a “crunchberry.” Furthermore, the “Crunchberries” depicted on the [box] are round, crunchy, brightly-colored cereal balls, and the [box] clearly states both that the Product contains “sweetened corn & oat cereal” and that the cereal is “enlarged to show texture.” Thus, a reasonable consumer would not be deceived into believing that the Product in the instant case contained a fruit that does not exist.

Ah, but can a grown adult who eats Crunchberries for four years, as the plaintiff allegedly did, be called a “reasonable consumer”?  

So far as this Court has been made aware, there is no such fruit growing in the wild or occurring naturally in any part of the world.

Even more damning, the investigation found that Cap’n Crunch’s two Purple Hearts and Medal of Honor supposedly earned during engagements in the Mekong Delta were complete fabrications.  His platoon was never stationed there and never saw action, and army records indicate that Richard Crunch was never even promoted above the rank of Second Lieuten’t.  

Furthermore, according to the United States Coast Guard, Cap’n Crunch is not legally permitted to operate a seagoing vessel, having lost his license for a 1996 incident in which an extremely intoxicated Crunch ran his vessel into a pier off Count Chocula’s waterfront estate.

The kicker, for the judge, was this:

Judge England also noted another federal court had “previously rejected substantially similar claims directed against the packaging of Fruit Loops [sic] cereal, and brought by these same Plaintiff attorneys.”  He found that their attack on “Crunchberries” should fare no better than their prior claims that “Froot Loops” did not contain real froot.

Et tu, Toucan Sam?  I’d expect this kind of deception from a filthy, booze-soaked ginger like Lucky the Leprechaun, but not you and Cap’n Crunch.

Interestingly, Honey Smacks does contain actual smack.

Source: Lowering the Bar via BoingBoing.