Washington ( CNN ) -- A competitor of the Coca-Cola Company can bring a private lawsuit against the beverage giant over allegations of false advertising in a juice product , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Thursday . The 8-0 decision is a win for Pom Wonderful , a California-based firm . It claimed Coke 's Minute Maid brand was cheating consumers through deceptive labeling in its Pomegranate Blueberry beverage , which the court said `` in truth ... contains but 0.3 % pomegranate juice and 0.2 % blueberry juice . '' At issue was whether one federal law regulating and enforcing food labeling preempted or overrode efforts by private parties to bring lawsuits under a separate federal law . Those two laws are the Food , Drug and Cosmetic Act , or FDCA , and the Lanham Act . `` Nothing in the text , history , or structure of the FDCA or the Lanham Act shows the congressional purpose or design to forbid these ( private ) suits , '' Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the unanimous court . `` Quite to the contrary , the FDCA and the Lanham Act complement each other in the federal regulation of misleading food and beverage labels . Competitors , in their own interest , may bring Lanham Act claims like POM 's that challenge food and beverage labels that are regulated by the FDCA . '' Lower courts had sided with Georgia-based Coca-Cola , a global brand . But the justices concluded that while the federal government can go after misleading labels , private parties can also challenge `` practices that allegedly mislead and trick consumers . '' POM Wonderful , which produces pomegranate juices and products , has also faced allegations of deceptive advertising . It was separately sued by the Federal Trade Commission in 2010 , for making `` false and unsubstantiated '' health claims , and the agency had asked POM to remove the claims from its ads . The current case is POM Wonderful LLC v. Coca Cola Company ( 12-761 ) . Justice Stephen Breyer did not participate in deciding this appeal .
Pom Wonderful has accused a Coke brand of deceptive labeling . At issue was whether a labeling law clashed with private efforts to sue under a separate law . The laws `` complement each other '' in regulating misleading food and drink labels , court says .