The plaintiffs group, which now includes eight table sugar producers and two sugar trade associations, first sued the Corn Refiners Association and individual members of the CRA back in March. In a first amended complaint, team table sugar’s lawyers at Squire, Sanders & Dempsey challenged the claims made in a CRA media campaign promoting high fructose corn syrup that began in 2008. In particular, the plaintiffs took issue with assertions that high fructose corn syrup is “natural,” that “sugar is sugar,” and that the refined sweetener should be called “corn sugar.” The sugar plaintiffs brought false advertising claims under the Lanham Act and alleged that the CRA had violated California’s Unfair Business Practices Act.
On those state law claims, the corn growers prevailed on Friday under California’s anti-SLAPP provision, which allows for early dismissals of cases that might have a chilling effect on free speech. “The Court finds that CRA’s conduct is protected under the anti-SLAPP statute because the conduct consists of written or oral statements made in a public forum in connection with an issue of public interest,” Judge Marshall wrote. As the prevailing party on its motion to strike, the CRA is entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs. Team corn is represented in the litigation by Winston & Strawn; Los Angeles Winston & Strawn partner Gail Standish is co-lead on the case with trial heavyweight Dan Webb.
