Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 1 of 325
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
`
`--------------------------------------------------------------X
`MARK J. PATANE, JULIE HARDING,
`HEATHER HARRIGAN, STEPHEN S.
`SHAPIRO, CATHERINE PORTER,
`ERICA RUSSELL, TINA MORETTI,
`BRIDGET KOPET, JENNIFER S. COLE,
`BENJAMIN A. FLETCHER and
`DIANE BOGDAN, Individually and
`on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
`
`Case
`
`Hon.
`
`ECF Case
`
`CLASS ACTION
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`-v-
`
`NESTLE WATERS NORTH AMERICA, INC.
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`Defendant.
`--------------------------------------------------------------X
`
`AUGUST 15, 2017
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 2 of 325
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
`
`SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFFS’ FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ......................................................9
`
`PARTIES .......................................................................................................................................13
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE ....................................................................................................20
`
`GOVERNING FDA BOTTLED WATER REGULATIONS .......................................................20
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ........................................................................................................35
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`Defendant Obtained its Spring Water Permits in Maine
`Improperly Without Meeting the FDA’s Identity Standard ...................................36
`
`Defendant’s False and Deceptive Product Labels .................................................39
`
`Fundamental Concepts of Hydrogeology ..............................................................43
`
`Commercial Wells and Well-Related Hydrology ..................................................54
`
`The Maine Geological Survey ...............................................................................58
`
`Defendant’s Eight Groundwater Collection Sites Do Not
`Contain Real Springs, and Its Wells Do Not Produce Genuine
`“Spring Water” that Meets the FDA’s Identity Standard ......................................62
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The “Poland Spring” Is Not a Source of Water Used in Defendant’s
`Poland Spring Water Products, and the Water Collected by Wells at
`Defendant’s Poland Spring, Maine Site Is Not Spring Water ...................62
`
`Water Collected at Defendant’s “Clear Spring” Site in Hollis
`Is Not Spring Water Because the Clear Spring Is Man-Made .................105
`
`Water Collected at Defendant’s “Garden Spring” Site in Poland Is
`Not Spring Water, and the Garden Spring Is Not a Genuine Spring .......141
`
`Water Collected at Defendant’s “Evergreen Spring” Site in
`Fryeburg Is Not Spring Water, and the Evergreen Spring
`Is Not a Genuine Spring ...........................................................................170
`
`Water Collected at Defendant’s “Cold Spring” Site in Denmark
`Is Not Spring Water, and No Genuine Spring Exists at that Site ............192
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 3 of 325
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`Water Collected at Defendant’s “White Cedar Spring”
`Site in Dallas Plantation Is Not Spring Water, and the
`White Cedar Spring Does Not Naturally Exist ........................................220
`
`Water Collected at Defendant’s “Spruce Spring”
`Site in Pierce Pond Is Not Spring Water, and the
`Spruce Spring Does Not Genuinely Exist ................................................240
`
`Water Collected at Defendant’s “Bradbury Spring”
`Site in Kingfield Is Not Spring Water, and the
`Bradbury Spring Is Not a Genuine Spring ...............................................259
`
`VII. Maine’s Compromised Spring Water Regulatory Process ..................................277
`
`VIII. All Statutes of Limitations are Tolled ..................................................................280
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS ............................................................................................................282
`
`CLAIMS BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONWIDE CLASS ....................................287
`
`Count I – Fraud ................................................................................................................287
`
`Count II – Breach of Contract ..........................................................................................289
`
`CLAIMS BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF THE STATE SUB-CLASSES ...................................290
`
`Count III – Violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ......................................290
`
`Count IV – Violations of New York General Business Law § 349 .................................292
`
`Count V – Violations of New York General Business Law § 350 ..................................293
`
`Count VI – Violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ...........................295
`
`Count VII – Violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.........................297
`
`Count VIII – Violations of the Rhode Island Consumer Protection Act .........................302
`
`Count IX – Violations of the Vermont Consumer Fraud Act ..........................................306
`
`Count X – Violations of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act ........................310
`
`Count XI – Violations of the Maine Unfair Trade Practices Act
`and the Maine Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act ..................................................315
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF and DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ....................................................319
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 4 of 325
`
`Plaintiffs Mark J. Patane, Julie Harding, Heather Harrigan, Stephen S. Shapiro,
`
`Catherine Porter, Erica Russell, Tina Moretti, Bridget Kopet, Jennifer S. Cole, Benjamin A.
`
`Fletcher and Diane Bogdan, each individually and as class representatives on behalf of all
`
`similarly situated persons or entities (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on knowledge as to their own
`
`status and actions and otherwise upon information and belief based on their counsels’
`
`investigation, allege for their complaint against Nestle Waters North America, Inc. (“Nestle
`
`Waters” or “Defendant”) as follows (pages 1 to 13 summarize Plaintiffs’ claims and factual
`
`allegations; pages 14 to 321 particularize them and state Plaintiffs’ causes of action):
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Companies doing business in the United States are legally compelled to tell the
`
`truth about the nature of the goods they sell to American consumers. Mislabeling or otherwise
`
`misrepresenting a product as being something it is not, and thereby deceiving and misleading
`
`consumers into purchasing that product or paying more for it than they would if the product was
`
`accurately labeled, is unlawful. Defendant Nestle Waters, a unit of the giant Swiss food and
`
`beverage conglomerate Nestle, S.A., has long violated this fundamental principle with respect to
`
`its Poland Spring® brand “100% Natural Spring Water” product line (hereafter, “Poland Spring
`
`Water”). As to that product line, breaching and exploiting its customers’ trust to reap massive
`
`undue sales and profits is Defendant’s entire business model.
`
`2.
`
`For more than twenty years, Nestle Waters’ marketing and sales of Poland Spring
`
`Water has been a colossal fraud perpetrated against American consumers. To consumers,
`
`“spring water” from a naturally occurring spring signifies purity and high quality and commands
`
`a premium price compared to Defendant’s non-spring drinking water products or filtered tap
`
`water. To illicitly capture that premium, Defendant, since it began selling the Poland Spring
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 5 of 325
`
`brand in 1993, has bottled common groundwater and illegally mislabeled it as “100% Natural
`
`Spring Water.”
`
`3.
`
`Not one drop of Poland Spring Water emanates from a water source that complies
`
`with the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) definition of “spring water.” Each year
`
`Defendant misidentifies hundreds of millions of gallons of Poland Spring Water as “spring
`
`water,” and for many years it has misrepresented on every Poland Spring Water label that the
`
`water in the bottle came from one or more of eight purported “natural springs” in Maine.
`
`4.
`
`Rather than being “100% Natural Spring Water” as Defendant’s labels advertise,
`
`and rather than being collected from pristine mountain or forest springs as the images on those
`
`labels depict, Poland Spring Water products all contain ordinary groundwater that Defendant
`
`collects from wells it drilled in saturated plains or valleys where the water table is within a few
`
`feet of the earth’s surface. The vast bulk of that groundwater is collected from Maine’s most
`
`populous counties in southwestern Maine, only a short distance from the New Hampshire border.
`
`5.
`
`FDA regulations require all bottled spring water to be collected either at the
`
`source of a naturally occurring spring or from a well that extracts water that could otherwise exit
`
`the earth’s surface from a natural spring if not drawn from the well. In hydrogeological parlance,
`
`all such well water must be “hydraulically connected” to a genuine spring. All such well water
`
`also must have “the same” physical and chemical characteristics as the water emerging from the
`
`spring. Not one ounce of Defendant’s Poland Spring Water complies with the law’s mandates.
`
`6.
`
`None of Defendant’s eight purported “natural spring” sites contains a genuine
`
`spring under FDA rules. Defendant produces nearly one billion gallons of alleged “spring
`
`water” a year. To produce that much water naturally, Defendant’s eight alleged springs each
`
`would have to flow at an average rate of 245 gallons per minute, or more forcefully than a 2-inch
`
` 2
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 6 of 325
`
`diameter fire hose at 40 pounds per square inch. Such a spring would be plainly visible – more
`
`like a geyser than a spring – and undoubtedly well known. Yet there is no photographic proof
`
`that even one such spring – much less eight – exists on or near Defendant’s sites in Maine. Nor
`
`is there any historical evidence for six of Defendant’s alleged springs, and two are former springs
`
`that no longer exist. The famous Poland Spring in Poland Spring, Maine, which Defendant’s
`
`labels claim is a source of Poland Spring Water, ran dry nearly 50 years ago, decades before
`
`Defendant bought the Poland Spring brand name. The “spring” Defendant now claims exists in
`
`Poland Spring is at the bottom of a lake. It has never been proven to exist, and the evidence that
`
`Defendant itself filed with Maine regulators shows it does not exist. Because the Poland Spring
`
`is not a source of its products, Defendant’s use of the “Poland Spring” brand name is unlawful.
`
`7.
`
`To feign compliance with FDA regulations, Defendant has gone so far as to build
`
`or maintain phony, man-made “springs” at all seven of its other sites. Defendant has created
`
`artificial springs (i) by causing well water to flow artificially through pipes or plastic tubes into
`
`wetlands that contain no genuine springs; (ii) by inserting small wells into the ground to tap the
`
`water table and artificially force groundwater to the surface; and (iii) by maintaining excavated
`
`pits in the ground that intercept the water table to form man-made pools. (See paragraphs 351-
`
`359, 467-486, 568-574, 634-635, 703-704, 717-719, 759-765, 775, 820-827 below.) At its
`
`eighth site, Defendant uses a machine to sustain the defunct Poland Spring. (See paragraph 213.)
`
`8.
`
`Artificial man-made “springs” do not satisfy FDA standards. Genuine springs
`
`must have a “natural orifice” through which water “flows naturally” to the surface, without
`
`human assistance. By faking the existence of springs, Defendant is defrauding its consumers.
`
`9.
`
`Many wells at Defendant’s purported “spring” sites, furthermore, are close
`
`enough to swamps, bogs, streams, lakes, ponds or other bodies of surface water to induce water
`
` 3
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 7 of 325
`
`from them into the wells if they are pumped at sufficient rates. Under FDA rules, groundwater
`
`mixed with surface water is not “spring water.” And in certain circumstances it may not be
`
`lawfully used in any bottled drinking water products at all.
`
`10.
`
`Unknown to the general public, one or more wells at each of Defendant’s six
`
`largest volume groundwater collection sites in Maine – which in recent years have collectively
`
`supplied up to 99% of the water in Poland Spring Water products – are near a present or former
`
`human waste dump, refuse pit, landfill, ash pile, salt mound, farm where pesticides were
`
`previously used, fish hatchery or toxic petroleum dump site. Such areas are near all four of
`
`Defendant’s most productive well sites – those in Poland Spring, Hollis, Poland and Fryeburg,
`
`from which Defendant collectively pumps 80% of its Poland Spring Water.
`
`11.
`
`In Poland Spring, all of Defendant’s wells are near standing bodies of water,
`
`including a lake with a nearby recreational beach and a kettle pond next to a now-buried refuse
`
`pit, which had served as a nearby resort’s garbage dump for nearly 200 years. Several wells are
`
`also directly downhill from the resort’s former “spray irrigation” field, a wooded area that was
`
`long-used as the resort’s septic system, into which it sprayed its guests’ human excrements.
`
`12. While Poland Spring Water products are not frequently contaminated because
`
`Defendant disinfects – and in some cases has purified – the groundwater it collects, Poland
`
`Spring Water labels are misleading under FDA rules because, in addition to falsely advertising
`
`that the bottles contain “100% Natural Spring Water” purportedly sourced from natural springs,
`
`the labels depict pristine scenes of water flowing down a verdant hillside or a forest pond to
`
`convey an image of natural purity when, in fact, the vast bulk of the water is drawn from wells in
`
`low-lying populated areas near potential sources of contamination. The labels are also deceptive
`
`to the extent Defendant purifies the water. If consumers knew where Defendant’s wells were
`
` 4
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 8 of 325
`
`actually located, rather than being misled by Defendant’s falsely reassuring labels depicting
`
`pristine scenes, and knew the extent to which Defendant treated or purified the water, they would
`
`not buy, or would not pay premium prices for, Poland Spring Water products.
`
`13.
`
`At all of its well sites, Defendant conceals the fact that it is collecting ordinary
`
`groundwater rather than natural spring water. Defendant shields all of its source wells and
`
`purported “springs” from public view, behind trees or shrubs and locked fences and gates
`
`marked with “No Trespassing,” “Private Property” or other warning signs to fend off scrutiny.
`
`Although four of Defendant’s pumping stations for loading water tankers are visible from the
`
`street, there are no signs at or near Defendant’s well sites or pumping stations notifying the
`
`public that Poland Spring brand purported “spring water” is being collected there or that Poland
`
`Spring Water wells are in the area.
`
`14.
`
`Through its more than two decades-long pattern of deception, Defendant has built
`
`its Poland Spring Water brand into the country’s largest bottled spring water brand. Poland
`
`Spring Water’s market share exceeds 50% in its primary marketing region, the northeastern
`
`United States. Poland Spring Water sales in the U.S. were approximately $400 million in 2007
`
`and have been between $300 million and $900 million annually for each of the past nine years.
`
`Currently, at least 13 million consumers nationwide buy Poland Spring Water under false and
`
`deceptive circumstances every year.
`
`15.
`
`Defendant’s consumer fraud-based business model for Poland Spring Water has
`
`enabled it to unduly penetrate and profit from the bottled spring water market in three ways.
`
`First, by falsely labeling its bottled groundwater as “100% Natural Spring Water,” Defendant
`
`captures consumers of premium water who are willing to pay premium prices, taking market
`
`share from bottlers of genuine spring water. Through economies of scale, in fact, Defendant
`
` 5
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 9 of 325
`
`captures an extraordinarily large share of that market because it can produce massive volumes of
`
`its groundwater products – now about a billion gallons per year – that most bottlers of genuine
`
`spring water cannot match due to geophysical and hydrogeological limitations on the volume of
`
`water that feeds most natural springs. These economies of scale enable Defendant to charge
`
`lower, but still premium, prices that genuine spring water purveyors also cannot match.
`
`16.
`
`Second, by charging a lower premium, Defendant also captures consumers of
`
`other premium water products, such as mineral water or artesian well water, who switch to
`
`Poland Spring Water because it is priced more attractively than their current premium water.
`
`17.
`
`Third, Defendant lures consumers of lower cost purified water or other bottled
`
`drinking water products, as well as filtered tap water consumers, who are willing to pay more to
`
`buy supposedly premium “spring water” at what they think is a favorable price.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant’s deceptive business strategy is becoming ever more successful.
`
`Pallets of Poland Spring Water have become ubiquitous on the floors of grocery store chains,
`
`wholesale discount clubs and convenience stores in many areas in the northeast. Even some gas
`
`station convenience stores are selling many cases of Defendant’s Poland Spring Water a day and
`
`carry comparatively small supplies of competing premium or purified water products. Defendant
`
`recently lowered its premium to compete more directly with bottlers of private label (store brand)
`
`spring water and purified water, enabling retailers to charge only a few dollars more per case for
`
`supposedly premium Poland Spring Water than for these other bottled drinking water products.
`
`Defendant then raised its prices after capturing additional market share.
`
`19.
`
`In short, Defendant’s fraudulent sale of ordinary groundwater as “spring water”
`
`has enabled its Poland Spring Water to become the dominant brand in a market in which it does
`
`not even belong – the bottled spring water market. Poland Spring Water is ordinary well water
`
` 6
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 10 of 325
`
`or purified water that legally should be labeled as such. If Defendant’s product were lawfully
`
`labeled, it would compete in the bottled drinking water or purified water market, not the bottled
`
`spring water market. Defendant’s fraudulent presence in the latter market not only misleads its
`
`consumers, it distorts the entire spring water marketplace and deprives legitimate spring water
`
`sellers of their rightful shares of 50% of that market in the Northeast United States.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant’s Poland Spring Water is sold to two categories of consumers: the
`
`“PET” or “retail” market, which refers primarily to the polyethylene terephthalate plastic bottles
`
`(ranging from eight ounces to 2.5 gallons) that are sold to consumers in supermarkets, food
`
`stores, other retail stores, and vending machines, and the “Home & Office” market, consisting of
`
`the five-gallon or other returnable containers that are delivered to customers directly and used
`
`primarily in water coolers. Five-gallon jugs are now also sold in the PET market.
`
`21.
`
`To end Nestle Waters’ long-running fraud and deceptive business practices,
`
`Plaintiffs bring this proposed class action on behalf of all consumers of Poland Spring Water
`
`nationwide who have purchased Poland Spring Water since November 5, 2003 (the “Class
`
`Period”), excluding Defendant’s own personnel and agents (the “Class”), as well as on behalf of
`
`a sub-class of Home & Office consumers and eight sub-classes of PET market consumers in the
`
`brand’s primary marketing territory consisting of the northeastern states of New Jersey, New
`
`York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine
`
`(collectively, the “Sub-Classes”).
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiffs seek monetary and injunctive relief based on Defendant’s violations of
`
`those states’ false advertising and consumer protection laws and based on Defendant’s
`
`nationwide breaches of contract and fraud arising from Defendant’s false and deceptive labeling
`
`and sale of Poland Spring Water as “100% Natural Spring Water.”
`
` 7
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 11 of 325
`
`23.
`
`Defendant’s false and misleading labels have caused Plaintiffs and members of
`
`the Class to overpay for Poland Spring Water in both the PET and Home & Office markets.
`
`Poland Spring Water historically has cost materially more per bottle and per gallon than
`
`Defendant’s own alternative non-spring water product – Nestle Pure Life® brand purified water,
`
`some of which is drawn from the same aquifers and bottled in the same plants as Poland Spring
`
`Water – and more than what consumers would have paid if Defendant had properly labeled it
`
`instead of falsely calling it spring water. Plaintiffs and the Class have overpaid for Poland
`
`Spring Water and are entitled as damages to refunds of the unjustified premiums they have paid
`
`or, alternatively, to minimum statutory penalties under state false advertising laws.
`
`24.
`
`The premiums paid by Poland Spring Water purchasers recently have been $0.65
`
`per gallon or more in the retail PET market and $0.20 per gallon in the Home & Office market.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class are also entitled to permanent injunctive relief compelling
`
`Defendant to remove its unlawfully labeled Poland Spring Water products from retail store
`
`shelves. Defendant should also be precluded on all future product labels from referring to
`
`“100% Natural Spring Water,” from using the “Poland Spring” brand name, and from depicting
`
`misleading pristine mountain or forest spring scenes. (Defendant’s misleading labels appear at
`
`paragraph 125 below.) Plaintiffs and the Class are exposed to future harm from Defendant’s
`
`unlawful activities because, among other reasons, many smaller retailers, such as doughnut
`
`shops, delicatessens and pizzerias, sell no bottled water products other than Poland Spring Water,
`
`either by choice or because they have exclusive contracts with Defendant. Plaintiffs and Class
`
`members who shop at those stores and want or need to buy bottled water have no option but to
`
`buy, and to overpay for, Defendant’s mislabeled product. Permanent injunctive relief, therefore,
`
`is both appropriate and necessary.
`
` 8
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 12 of 325
`
`SUMMARY OF PLAINTIFFS’ FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`26.
`
`As described in detail below, Defendant Nestle Water’s Poland Spring Water
`
`products are falsely advertised and sold fraudulently to consumers because they do not comply
`
`with the FDA’s “standard of identity” for spring water, which defines genuine spring water and
`
`specifies the manner in which spring water must be “collected” (or extracted) from the earth.
`
`27.
`
`Poland Spring Water does not meet the FDA’s three-part definition of spring
`
`water, and it is not collected in conformity with the agency’s requirements for extracting spring
`
`water from the earth. Specifically, (i) none of Defendant’s groundwater collection wells in
`
`Maine is hydraulically connected to water that flows from the natural orifice of a genuine spring;
`
`(ii) none of Defendant’s Poland Spring Water contains water that is collected from the same
`
`underground stratum that feeds a natural spring; and (iii) none of Defendant’s Poland Spring
`
`Water products contains water that is has the same physical, chemical and quality characteristics
`
`as water that flows from the natural orifice of a genuine spring.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant’s Poland Spring Water, therefore, does not qualify as “spring water”
`
`and cannot be lawfully labeled or sold as “spring water,” much less as “100% Natural Spring
`
`Water.” Those products instead must be labeled and sold as “bottled water,” “drinking water,”
`
`“well water,” or, perhaps, as “purified water” or a particular type of purified water.
`
`29.
`
`Some of Defendant’s groundwater sources cannot be used in any bottled drinking
`
`water products at all under FDA regulations because they are “under the direct influence of
`
`surface water” such as swamps, bogs, lakes, ponds, rivers and streams.
`
`30.
`
`Defendant’s Poland Spring Water labels are also false and misleading because
`
`they do not disclose, as the FDA requires, that some of the water in Poland Spring Water is
`
`sourced from a municipal water system that supplies tap water in Fryeburg, Maine.
`
` 9
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 13 of 325
`
`31.
`
`Defendant’s Poland Spring Water labels are also false and deceptive because most
`
`of the labels misleadingly depict a pristine stream flowing down a verdant hillside or a forest
`
`pond, which deceives consumers into believing that Poland Spring Water is produced from
`
`naturally pure sources far from potential pollutants when, in fact, the vast bulk of the
`
`groundwater used in Poland Spring Water comes from densely populated areas that are
`
`potentially susceptible to contamination from human waste, dump sites, chemical fertilizers, salts
`
`and other pollutants.
`
`32.
`
`None of Defendant’s eight commercial well sites in Maine from which Defendant
`
`sources its Poland Spring Water qualifies as a legitimate spring water source under FDA rules,
`
`and none of the eight produces water that meets the FDA’s standard of identity for spring water.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant’s “Poland Spring” site in Poland Spring, Maine fails the FDA’s spring
`
`water standard of identity because (i) its eight wells there are not hydraulically connected to a
`
`genuine natural spring – Defendant asserts that those wells are connected to “subaqueous
`
`springs” in the middle of a lake, but it has never proven by valid scientific means that such
`
`springs exist; (ii) the water collected by its wells is not from the same underground strata as the
`
`groundwater that discharges into its alleged lake-bottom springs; (iii) the water collected by its
`
`wells does not have the same chemical and physical composition as the water discharging into
`
`the alleged springs; (iv) most or all of its eight wells draw in surface water, which cannot legally
`
`be called spring water; and (v) Defendant has in the past demineralized some of its wells’ water
`
`via purification processes and may still do so, disqualifying it from being called spring water.
`
`(See paragraphs 189-344 below.)
`
`34.
`
`Defendant’s “Clear Spring” site in Hollis, Maine fails the FDA’s spring water
`
`standard of identity because (i) its six wells there are not hydraulically connected to a genuine
`
` 10
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 14 of 325
`
`natural spring – Defendant has created artificial “springs” there using small wells and plastic
`
`tubing to induce groundwater to flow into a wetland area that contains no genuine springs;
`
`(ii) the water collected by its wells is not from the same underground strata as the groundwater
`
`that discharges into its alleged springs; (iii) the water collected by its wells does not have the
`
`same chemical and physical composition as the water discharging into the alleged springs; and
`
`(iv) Defendant has in the past demineralized at least one Hollis well’s water via purification
`
`processes and may still do so, disqualifying it from being called spring water. (See paragraphs
`
`345-458 below.)
`
`35.
`
`Defendant’s “Garden Spring” site in Poland, Maine fails the FDA’s spring water
`
`standard of identity because (i) its two wells there are not hydraulically connected to a genuine
`
`natural spring – Defendant’s alleged “springs” there are man-made, created when someone
`
`digging a gravel pit struck the water table; (ii) there is no evidence that the water collected by its
`
`wells is from the same underground strata as the groundwater that discharges into its alleged
`
`springs; (iii) the water collected by its wells does not have the same chemical and physical
`
`composition as the water discharging into the alleged springs; and (iv) one or both wells draw in
`
`surface water, which cannot legally be called spring water. (See paragraphs 459-548 below.)
`
`36.
`
`Defendant’s “Evergreen Spring” site in Fryeburg, Maine fails the FDA’s spring
`
`water standard of identity because (i) its well there is not hydraulically connected to a genuine
`
`natural spring – Defendant’s alleged “spring” there is a man-made pond that intersects the water
`
`table and is fed by a small well or pipe; (ii) the water collected by its well is not from the same
`
`underground strata as the groundwater that discharges into its alleged spring; (iii) the water
`
`collected by its wells does not have the same chemical and physical composition as the water
`
`discharging into the alleged springs; (iv) its well draws in surface water, which cannot legally be
`
` 11
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 15 of 325
`
`called spring water; and (v) Defendant leases its well and purchases its water from a public
`
`utility that supplies Fryeburg’s tap water, yet Defendant fails to disclose on its Poland Spring
`
`Water labels that the water is sourced in part from a “municipal source,” as FDA rules require.
`
`(See paragraphs 548-619 below.)
`
`37.
`
`Defendant’s “Cold Spring” site in Denmark, Maine fails the FDA’s spring water
`
`standard of identity because (i) its two wells there are not hydraulically connected to a genuine
`
`natural spring – Defendant has created artificial “springs” there using small wells to induce
`
`groundwater to flow into a wetland area that contains no genuine springs; (ii) the water collected
`
`by its wells is not from the same underground strata as the groundwater that discharges into its
`
`alleged springs; and (iii) the water collected by its wells does not have the same chemical and
`
`physical composition as the water discharging into the alleged “springs.” (See paragraphs 620-
`
`689 below.)
`
`38.
`
`Defendant’s “White Cedar Spring” site in Dallas Plantation, Maine fails the
`
`FDA’s spring water standard of identity because (i) its two wells there are not hydraulically
`
`connected to a genuine natural spring – Defendant has created artificial “springs” there using
`
`small wells to induce groundwater to flow into a man-made pond, which was formed when a
`
`railroad berm was built through a wetland that contains no genuine springs; (ii) the water
`
`collected by its wells does not have the same chemical and physical composition as the water
`
`discharging into the alleged springs; and (iii) one or both wells appear to draw in surface water,
`
`which cannot legally be called spring water. (See paragraphs 690-743 below.)
`
`39.
`
`Defendant’s “Spruce Spring” site in Pierce Pond Township, Maine fails the
`
`FDA’s spring water standard of identity because (i) its two wells there are not hydraulically
`
`connected to a genuine natural spring – Defendant has created artificial “springs” there using
`
` 12
`
`

`

`Case 3:17-cv-01381-JAM Document 1 Filed 08/15/17 Page 16 of 325
`
`small wells to induce groundwater to flow along a stream bed that contains no genuine springs
`
`near the wells; and (ii) there is no evidence that the water collected by its wells has the same
`
`chemical and physical composition as the water discharging into the alleged springs. (See
`
`paragraphs 744-791 below.)
`
`40.
`
`Defendant’s “Bradbury Spring” site in Kingfield, Maine fails the FDA’s spring
`
`water standard of identity because (i) its five wells there are not hydraulically connected to a
`
`genuine natural spring – there, Defendant calls seasonal streams “springs” and has created in at
`
`least one such stream an artificial “spring” by piping water from a nearby well into the stream;
`
`(ii) the water collected by its wells does not have the same chemical and physical composition as
`
`the water discharging into the alleged springs; and (iii) several of the five wells appear to draw in
`
`surface water, which cannot legally be called spring water. (See p