Full opinion text
ORDER RULING ON EVIDENTIARY MOTIONS AND DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RICHARD SEEBORG, United States District Judge I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Kathie Sonner contends defendant Premier Nutrition Corporation peddles what amounts to worthless snake oil: Joint Juice, a liquid dietary supplement containing glucosamine hydrochloride (“glucosamine”) and chondroitin sulfate (“chondroitin”). Joint Juice advertisements and packages encourage readers to drink the product to help keep joints flexible and lubricated. According to Sonner, the real aim of these advertisements is impliedly to promote Joint Juice as a remedy for pain and stiffness in arthritic joints. In an effort to relieve joint pain and stiffness, Sonner contends she bought a six-pack of Joint Juice, drank a few bottles, but was ultimately dissatisfied with the product. Armed with numerous meta-analyses, clinical trials, treatment protocols, and expert reports, Sonner now argues that glucosa-mine and chondroitin do not and cannot palliate arthritic joints or improve the function of healthy joints, as Premier impliedly and expressly advertises. To remedy what she contends amounts to consumer fraud, she asserts claims for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. FACC ¶ 62, Counts I & II. In its motion for summary judgment, Premier disavows any suggestion that it has made representations suggesting Joint Juice is a remedy for symptoms of osteoarthritis (“OA”) and contends that Sqnner has introduced no evidence establishing the existence of implied messages. It further contends that its express or implied statements about the general joint health benefits of Joint Juice are unsubstantiated, at worst, or are supported by scientific research, at best. In Premier’s view, that the studies of glucosamine and chondroitin are equivocal means Sonner can show only that Premier’s health claims are unsubstantiated; claims for relief which are unavailable to private plaintiffs. Finally, Premier challenges Sonner’s ability to prove her restitution damages — a full refund— and therefore summary judgment is required. Contrary to Premier’s position, Sonner does not assert a, lack of substantiation case properly relegated to state prosecuting authorities. Such a claim arises where, absent any evidence suggesting a representation is false or misleading, a plaintiff demands a defendant either “put up or shut up.” Here, by contrast Sonner has advanced evidence which directly supports the contention that certain of Premier’s representations are false' or misleading. In other words, her argument is more than a call for Premier simply to substantiate its product benefit claims, but instead represents an evidentiary showing which requires the traditional analysis of whether or not there exist disputed issues on the false and misleading nature of Premier’s representations. The answer to that inquiry is that Son-ner has successfully raised triable issues of fact. Marketing research shows that consumers consistently buy and use Joint Juice because they have joint pain, raising the reasonable inference that consumers believe the product would provide a remedy for such afflictions. Furthermore, reviewing the scientific literature available and the testimony of Sonner’s expert witnesses, a jury could reasonably conclude researchers have shown definitively that glucosamine and chondroitin do not relieve the pain and stiffness of OA sufferers and that ingested glucosamine and chondroitin are not bioavailable in amounts sufficient to reap any joint health benefit. Although Premier has offered expert testimony and scientific research suggesting that the research is equivocal, Sonner has offered principled critiques of each of those studies. If a jury agrees with those criticisms, then it may also logically decide that it is misleading to claim Joint Juice can provide benefit in the face of substantial evidence to the contrary. Finally, this record supports Sonner’s claim that a full refund may be appropriate. In light of the myriad triable issues of fact, summary judgment must be denied. Also at issue are four evidentiary motions: to exclude the testimony of Sonner’s expert Steven Graboff, MD, and Premier’s experts Daniel Grande, Ph.D., and Hal Poret; and a motion to strike the errata sheet to the deposition of Sonner’s expert Lynn Willis, Ph.D. Although Sonner has identified numerous, credible reasons to question the reliability of the opinions of Grande and Poret, these witnesses’ opinions are not. so ungrounded in reliable methods or explanation to require exclusion. She will be able adequately to expose the weaknesses of their testimony with effective cross-examination. Graboff, on the other hand, has offered opinions about the bioavailability of ingested glucosamine and chondroitin — subject matter beyond his expertise as a clinical orthopedic surgeon. Accordingly, he may not offer such opinions. Finally, Willis has submitted three changes to his deposition testimony that impermissibly contradict his original answers. Accordingly they must be stricken. Two of the challenged edits are clarifying rather than contradictory, and therefore may remain. II. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Glucosamine and Chondroitin— Joint Juice’s Main Ingredients Glucosamine and chondroitin are the main ingredients in Joint Juice. Derived from glucose, glucosamine helps the synthesis of aggrecan, glycoproteins and gly-cosaminoglycans, which are essential for the construction and maintenance of the connective tissues and lubricating fluid' in the joints. Koenig Decl. Ex. H, Willis Suppl. Decl. ¶ 15. In other words, glucosa-mine is part of the complex mechanism that “provides cartilage with its viscoelastic ability to bear loads.” Blood Decl. CC Ex. 49, Grande Report at 6, 8. Chondroitin is also a “building block” of aggrecan and a “major component” of cartilage tissue. Id. at 9; see also Blood Decl. CC Ex. 46, Silbert Decl. ¶ 9. The body produces both carbohydrates naturally. There is no dispute that endogenous glu-cosamine and chondroitin are essential for biosynthesis of the connective tissue between movable joints. Sonner’s claims rise or fall based on whether the proteins in the joints can utilize ingested exogenous glucosamine and chondroitin. ■ . . B. Joint Juice Labels and Advertisements Since 2004, Premier has manufactured and marketed Joint Juice, a fruit-flavored beverage that contains 1,500 mg of gluco-samine and 200 mg of chondroitin per serving, vitamins and minerals, water, flavorings, and sweeteners. Koenig Decl. Exs. A-C. Joint Juice Extra Strength RTD contains 1,500 mg of glucosamine and 1,200 mg of chondroitin. The doses of glucosa-mine and chondroitin in Joint Juice are consistent with other glucosamine products in the market. Joint Juice differentiates itself from the other glucosamine products by offering the supplement in drinkable form with vitamins and minerals. See Blood Decl. MSJ Ex. 3, Ritterbush Dep. 29:17-24. Joint Juice’s bright orange labels announce that the product contains glucosa-mine and chondroitin, in addition to vitamin D3 and antioxidants. See Koenig Decl. Exs. A, B, C (Joint Juice labels). Premier includes three types of graphics: pictures of fruit and juice; outlines of people running and jumping; and an x-ray image of a knee. See Blood Deck CC Ex. 9 (Joint Juice label exemplars). The label explains the purpose of consuming glucosamine and chondroitin: “A full day’s supply of gluco-samine combined with chondroitin helps keep cartilage lubricated and flexible.” E.g., Koenig Decl. Ex.! C. Some products suggest the consumer “hydrate [and] lubricate your joints,” Blood Decl. CC Ex. 9 at 000045, while others suggest consumers regularly use the product: “Drink Daily for Healthy, Flexible Joints,” Blood Decl. CC Ex, 9. In smaller print, Joint Juice proclaims: “Whether you’re a gardener or a marathoner, your joints will love this. Originally developed for pro athletes by orthopaedic surgeon Kevin R. Stone, M.D., Joint Juice combines glucosamine and chondroitin with Vitamin D3 and antioxidants. A bottle a day keeps your joints in play.” Koenig Decl. Ex. A, B. The label on the Joint Juice Easy Shot offers a slightly different variation: “Whether you’re climbing stairs or scaling mountains, your joints will love this. Developed by orthopaedic surgeon Kevin R. Stone, M.D., each shot provides a full day’s supply of Glucosamine plus Chondroitin, Vitamin D3 and Antioxidants. Easy, fast-absorbing, and tastes great!” Koenig Decl. Ex. C. Included on each Joint Juice label is the Arthritis Foundation logo, website address, and toll-free phone number. See Koenig Deck Exs. A, B, C. Joint Juice advertises that it will donate “a portion of the proceeds” from the purchase “to the Arthritis Foundation with a minimum cqn-tribution of $75,000 to help people take control of arthritis.” Koenig Deck Ex. C. On the back of the product, Premier has included the following mandatory, disclaimer: “These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.” Id. C. The Joint Juice Marketing Strategy When developing its marketing plan, Premier chose to “[tjarget consumers [who] are aware of glucosamine as a remedy for joint discomfort and arthritis.” Blood Deck CC Ex. 7 at 1415. Specifically, Premier identified its target consumers as “[b]aby boomers (age 46-64) who are living with joint pain”; “[t]hose concerned with joint health”; “arthritis sufferers”; those who suffer from “[o]ther joint pain/limited mobility” because of “[o]veruse, strenuous athletics, [and] injury”; and those between the ages of thirty and ninety. Blood Deck CC Ex. 21, Ex. 22 at 022799. The Joint Juice marketing plan sought to “generate [a]wareness about the beneficial uses of glucosamine” and Joint Juice. Deck CC Ex. 23 at 071436. In an effort to “lend credibility to the Joint Juice products and the benefits of glucosamine,” Premier chose to mention Joint Juice’s creator, Dr. Stone, in many of its advertisements. Blood Deck CC Ex. 23 at 071437. In addition, Joint Juice brand guidelines emphasized a need to promote the “key performance benefits” of the product, namely “elasticity, mobility, durability, endurance, recovery, pain relief, [and] happy joints.” Blood Deck CC Ex. 25 (2009 Joint Juice Brand Guidelines). In an effort to encourage consumers to try Joint Juice, Premier created print advertisements, disseminated coupons, and hired legendary quarterback Joe Montana to speak in a commercial that aired on television. The print advertisements depict runners, gardeners, golfers, tennis players, and women climbing stairs in high heels. See Blood Deck Ex. 19 at 000022-29. Cartoon dialog bubbles emanate from the joints with exclamations of joy: ‘Yippee!” “Yay!” “Wheeee!” Underneath each picture are statements such as “Joint Juice fingers are happy to weed every weekend” and “Joint Juice backs are happy to play 18 more holes.” Id. at 000022, 24. These advertisements encourage users to “[k]eep your joints happy.” Blood Deck CC Ex. 19 at 000022-28. Premier also circulated print advertisements featuring Joe Montana, who tells the reader to “[k]eep doing what you love.” Id. at 000029. In television advertisements, Joe Montana delivers the following message about the putative benefits of drinking Joint Juice: My joints have gotten a little stiff lately and at first I thought I had to live with it because of pro-football and just getting older. Then my doctor told me about Joint Juice. Now I drink it every morning, and it’s much easier to swallow than those big pills. Just a bottle each day lets me keep doing the things I love, no matter what I’m up to. See, the glu-cosamine and chondroitin lubricates and cushions the cartilage in my joints, so I can move more easily all day long. It was originally developed by an orthopedic surgeon for pro-athletes, but it works great for anyone who likes to keep moving. It just took a little while to start kicking in for me and that’s when I started feeling really great! So join me for the Joint Juice challenge and get back to doing what you love. Blood Decl. CC Ex. 27; see also id. Ex. 28. As part of its online advertising campaign, Premier bid on various Google Ad-Words. When a Google user types in keywords, Google.com and its affiliates display advertisements for those companies that bid successfully for the AdWords. Blood Deck CC Ex. 36, Keegan Deck ¶21. Premier bid on the following AdWords: “joint health supplement,” “arthritis treatments,” “how to stop arthritis,” “supplement for arthritis,” “glucosamine,” “chondroitin,” and “arthritis cures.” Blood Deck CC Ex. 35. In addition, Premier pays for advertising space in Arthritis Today, the Arthritis Foundation’s magazine. Keegan Deck ¶ 24. Overall, Premier was satisfied that it had created “a clear brand name [and] identity” and “innovative communication” with consumers. Blood Deck CC Ex. 18. D. Joint Juice Market Research: Why do people buy Joint Juice? In 2009, Premier commissioned Schire-son Associates to conduct market research to gain a better understanding of Joint Juice customers, to test the effectiveness of the Joint Juice marketing concepts, and to identify how to improve the appeal of the product. Blood Deck Ex. 7 at 001416. A group of 203 Joint Juice target customers responded to questions that probed the purchasers’ reasons for buying the product. Id. Most respondents reported that they take glucosamine supplements because they suffered arthritis and joint pain or stiffness. Id. at 001422-23. When asked about the specific features of the Joint Juice packaging that would prompt the consumer to try Joint Juice, 59% identified the Arthritis Foundation endorsement. Id. at 001441. To sum up the findings, Schire-son offered the following analysis: “Target consumers are aware of glucosamine as a remedy for joint discomfort and arthritis, but awareness of Joint Juice [was] low” and “[i]nterest in glucosamine as a preventative [was also] low.” Id. at 001415. Subsequently, in 2010, Premier hired Zoomerang to conduct further market research generated by a survey of those who purchased Joint Juice from the online store or signed up for the Joint Juice newsletter within the preceding six months. Blood Deck CC Ex. 15. Of those who responded to the questions, 95% of respondents were experiencing joint pain. Id. Two-thirds of these consumers bought Joint Juice to alleviate joint pain. Id. When asked about how they first learned about Joint Juice, approximately 71% of respondents cited Premier’s advertisements— store shelves, television and print advertisements, coupons, product samples, and store displays. See id. More recently, Premier teamed up with MindReader to gain additional insight into “[c]onsumer behavior relating to Joint Juice usage: purchases, reasons for usage, and why they did not continue to use” the product. Blood Deck CC Ex. 39 at 132513. Pain relief was, again, the principle reason most survey respondents bought Joint Juice. Id. at 132514. When asked how users learned about Joint Juice, the majority of respondents identified advertisements: grocery store advertisements or coupon books (18%); television advertisements (16%), samples at a store or events (13%), and magazine or newspaper advertisements (10%). Id. at 132515. A quarter of users learned about Joint Juice from friends or family. Id. Turning to the reasons people chose to start using Joint Juice, MindReader discovered that the main reason for consumption was to ease joint pain. Id. at 132519-20. A significant portion of regular and occasional users admitted that they experience joint pain— 85% and 75% respectively. Premier’s internal customer data further confirm that a significant majority of Joint Juice users purchase the product because they have joint pain. See, e.g., Blood Decl. MSJ Ex. 1 at 020721 (noting that 90% of Joint Juice users have joint pain symptoms); Blood Decl. CC Ex. 15 (“95% of users suffer from joint pain.”); Blood Decl. Ex. 16 at 101642 (“92% of the current Joint Juice users have joint pain symptoms (OA, RA, Joint pain, etc.)”). E. Joint Juice Sales Since launching the Joint Juice advertising campaign, consumers have spent more than $156 million to purchase Joint Juice. Blood Decl. CC Ex. 44. Most Joint Juice customers — nearly eighty-five percent— purchase the product at Costco, Sam’s Club, and Walmart. Blood Decl. CC Ex. 3, Ritterbush Dep. 119:2-23; see also id. Ex. 4 (2014 Sales Plan). Many national drug and grocery stores — Kroger, Walgreens, CVS, and Rite Aid, for example — sell Joint Juice products, as well. Blood Decl. CC Ex. 4. F. Jeremey Keegan: Joint Juice’s Implied Message To evaluate whether Premier’s marketing strategy, expressed elaims, and implied claims influence consumers who purchase Joint Juice, Sonner retained Jeremey Kee-gan, whose consulting firm conducts consumer research and examines marketing materials. Premier has not challenged Keegan’s competence to testify. Keegan did not conduct a consumer survey. Rather, he reviewed Premier’s marketing materials, advertisements, and commissioned marketing research, such as the Min-dReader study and the Shireson study— both of which he believes are methodologically sound and reveal why consumers purchase Joint Juice. In particular, Keegan contends that the results of the MindReader survey reveal “that the primary appeal and driving reason” consumers purchase Joint Juice are “joint health and joint pain.” Keegan Decl. ¶ 34. That so many people purchase Joint Juice to alleviate joint pain or to promote joint health, he contends, demonstrates that Premier’s marketing efforts to target those groups are effective, thus he draws a causal connection between the marketing campaign and consumer action. Id. ¶¶ 37-38. In addition, he contends that the Schireson study exposed consumers’ interest in glucosamine products and provided a reason for Premier to emphasize that Joint Juice contains glucosamine — an agent linked to joint pain and the maintenance of joint flexibility. Id. ¶41. These findings, Keegan explains, helped Premier craft an advertising campaign building on the perceived efficacy of glucosamine. Id. at ¶ 46. Although Keegan could not evaluate the quality of Premier’s other marketing studies, such as the Zoomerang studies or focus groups, he noted that these studies demonstrate that a significant majority of Joint Juice users buy the product to combat joint-health problems — information, he states, that commonly assist companies as they develop their marketing messages. See Keegan Decl. ¶¶49, 53-54, 58. Based on the results of these marketing surveys, Keegan opines, “Joint Juice effectively positioned itself as a joint health product through its marketing materials” and consumers understand Premier’s implied claims about the palliative and structural benefits of drinking the product. Keegan Deck ¶ 63. G. Hal Poret’s Consumer Survey As part of this litigation, Premier retained Hal Poret to conduct a consumer survey. His online survey directed questions to 400 respondents — 200 of whom had purchased Joint Juice before, and 200 of whom had purchased a product containing glucosamine, but not Joint Juice. The survey began with an open-ended question: “[T]ell us why you decided to purchase Joint Juice.” Poret Report at 4 (emphasis in original). The respondents had the option to list up to twenty reasons for their purchasing decision, including an option to select “I don’t know.” Id. Next, Poret asked respondents to select from a list of choices the “reasons or factors that influenced your decision to purchase Joint Juice[.]” Id. The respondents who purchased another glucosamine product answered identical open and closed questions. The following were some of the choices offered: “I had generally heard about or read about the benefits of gluco-samine”; “Statements or information I read on the Joint Juice bottle or packaging”; “Statements or information I read/ heard in other advertising for Joint Juice”; “A doctor or other healthcare professional recommended I take Joint Juice/a glucosamine product”; “A friend or co-worker recommended I take Joint Juice/a glucosamine product”; “The product is vegetarian’” “Price/less expensive”; “Liked the taste”; “Endorsed by Joe Montana”; “Product contains chondroitin”; “Orange packaging[.]” See Poret Report at 5-6. There were two “control choices,” i.e., statements that were false: (1) “Statements or information I read/heard in promotions on a home shopping channel or website, such as HSN or QVC”; and (2) “Endorsed on the Dr. Oz show or website.” Poret Report at 6. Participants had the opportunity to select as many answers as they wanted. Once the survey results were received, Poret grouped those answers identifying statements on the packaging and in advertisements and the Joe Montana endorsement. Those who reported that the statements on the packaging influenced their purchasing decision were asked to identify which specific statements made an impression. Poret Report at 10-11. Poret never asked whether the .participant believed Joint Juice would relieve OA symptoms. Nor did he ask whether they believed the product could provide palliative or structural benefits to those suffering from OA. Based on the survey results, Poret contends the consumer survey results reveal that consumers purchase Joint Juice for myriad reasons, and only 5.5% chose to buy the product because of the statements on the label. Poret Report at 5, 25. Indeed, Poret contends, “[e]ven when the idea of statements in packaging or advertising was presented to respondents in the answer choices, roughly 75% of respondents answered that they were not influenced by statements on the package and roughly 75% answered that they were not influenced by statements in advertising.” Poret Report at 27 (emphasis in original). These results, he claims, show that the statements do not influence consumer decision-making, and less than half of-respondents reported finding the statements on packaging and in advertisements influential. Id. at 27. Instead, he interprets the survey results as showing that recommendations from friends and family members had the greatest impact on consumers’ purchasing decisions. Id. at 30. Keegan also reviewed the results of Po-ret’s survey and reached different conclusions. He concluded that, despite serious design flaws, the survey confirms that most Joint Juice users purchase the product with the hope that it will provide joint health benefits or relieve joint pain. Kee-gan Suppl. Report ¶ 13. Keegan’s principal criticism is that Poret coded respondents’ answers incorrectly, thereby failing to count all respondents motivated to buy the product by concern for joint pain and health. See id. ¶¶ 32-34. For example, Po-ret did not treat as motivated by joint health concerns those who tried the product to see if “it would work.” Id. ¶ 33. According to Keegan, proper coding reveals that 91% of those surveyed identified joint health and pain concerns influenced the decision to buy Joint Juice. Id. ¶¶ 26, 36-37, tbl. 2. In addition, Keegan faults Poret’s question design. Many of the offered, reasons to purchase Joint Juice did not mention joint pain or joint .health. See id.. ¶¶ 39-40. Instead, the list of options included reasons why the consumer might purchase Joint Juice instead of another glucosamine or joint-health product, such as the color of the package or that the product is shellfish-free. Id. In Keegan’s view, the failure to “present respondents with the opportunity that they purchased the product for joint health/joint pain-related reasons” renders the results incomplete, and therefore a poor ’ indicator of whether the implied or expressed messages influenced their purchasing decisions. Id. ¶ 41. H. The Scientific Literature About the Efficacy of Glucosamine and Chondroitin Sonner advances three principle theories to prove the falsity of Premier’s claims about the effects of drinking Joint Juice. First, she argues that the high-quality clinical studies and meta-analyses show that glucosamine and chondroitin do not reduce pain and stiffness caused by osteoarthritis (“OA”) or improve joint function. Second, she and her expert, Dr. Jeremiah E. Sil-bert, contend that very little ingested glu-cosamine and chondroitin actually gets to the joints by the time they work their way through the digestive system and into the bloodstream. Blood Deck CC Ex. 46, Sil-bert Decl. ¶ 12. Third, Silbert and Sonner claim that, even if some orally ingested glucosamine and chondroitin are bioavaila-ble, the amount is too small to have any effect on joints, Silbert Deck ¶ 13, 22, and the elevated levels of glucosamine in the bloodstream do not increase the “the total amount of chondroitin synthesized.” Sil-bert Deck ¶ 19. 1. The Literature Regarding the Efficacy of Glucosamine and Chondroitin There is a wealth of scientific literature about the efficacy of glucosamine and chondroitin of varying quality. The canon includes (1) randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled studies, (2) meta-analyses, (3) clinical treatment protocols, (4) in vitro studies; and pre-clinical animal studies. Sonner has retained Dr. Lynn R. Willis, a physiologist and pharmacologist, to conduct a systematic review of the available scientific literature and to interpret the meta-analyses and clinical trials. Premier also retained an expert witness, Dr. Daniel Grande, a cell biologist who specializes in cartilage defects, who offers his summary and impressions of the scientific literature, a. Clinical Trials Randomized clinical trials are “the gold standard for determining the relationship of an agent to a health outcome.” Federal Judicial Center, Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence 555 (3d ed. 2011). Usually such trials are placebo-controlled, meaning that trial participants receive an inactive ingredient that appears similar to the active ingredient being studied. Double blinding ensures that neither the trial participants nor the researchers know which participants received the active ingredient. See id. At the conclusion of the trial period, researchers compare the results of those who received the treatment and those who took the placebo to form conclusions about the effect of the treatment. See id. at 555-56. Of the numerous clinical trials examining the palliative and structural benefits of glucosamine and chondroitin, the Glucosa-mine/Chondroitin Arthritis Intervention Trials (“GAIT”) studies are the most influential. In 2006, 2008, and 2010 the NIH conducted three multicenter clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of glucosamine and chondroitin. The first of these studies examined whether five treatments reduced pain and stiffness in patients suffering from OA. Trial participants received one of five treatments for twenty-four weeks: (1) glucosamine hydrochloride, (2) chondroitin, (3) glucosamine and chondroitin, (4) cele-coxib, and (5) placebo. In 2006, the authors of the GAIT I study concluded, “Glu-cosamine and chondroitin sulfate alone or in combination did not reduce pain effectively in the overall group of patients with [OA] of the knee.” Blood Deck CC Ex. 50 at 2 (GAIT I); see also Willis Suppl. Deck ¶¶ 56-57. In other words, glucosamine and chondroitin, alone or in combination, performed no better than placebo. Researchers found, however, that a “subgroup of patients with moderate-to-severe pain demonstrated that combination therapy significantly decreased knee pain related to [OA].” GAIT I at 13. Two years later, in 2008, NIH published a follow-up study, GAIT II, which explored the effects of the same five treatments on progressive loss of joint space width in patients with OA of the knee over a period of twenty-four months. Blood Decl. Ex. 52 at 2 (GAIT II); see also Willis Supp. Deck ¶ 57. Researchers found “no significant differences in mean [joint space width] loss over 2 years between the treatment groups and the placebo group.... ” GAIT II at 5. Finally, in 2010, NIH released the third study designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the same five treatments over a twenty-four-month period. Blood Deck CC Ex. 53 at 2 (GAIT III). In addition, this study examined the research question the GAIT I study left open: whether people with moderate to severe joint pain benefit from taking glucosamine and chondroitin. The authors of GAIT III concluded “no treatment achieved a clinically important difference in WOMAC Pain or Function as compared with placebo.” GAIT III at 3. These results caused the researchers to conclude that glucosamine was “ineffective for treatment of pain.” Id. at 6. Nevertheless, the GAIT III authors noted that all treatment groups, including placebo, reported improved pain and function over the twenty-four-month period. Id. at 7. In sum, the authors surmised that the benefits of taking glucosamine and chondroitin to treat OA pain, function, and stiffness are “marginal at best.” Willis Suppl. Deck ¶ 61. In addition to the GAIT studies, numerous double-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials add to the body of scientific literature finding that glucosa-mine and chondroitin do not provide palliative or functional benefits. A 2015 six-month, double-blind study concluded that glucosamine and chondroitin have “no impact on the relief of OA symptoms.” Blood Deck Mot. to Exclude Grande Ex 16 at 9 (Hochberg, 2015). In 2014, the Long-term Evaluation of Glucosamine Sulfate study (“the LEGS study”) did “not detect significant symptomatic benefit” of glucosamine and chondroitin. Blood Deck Mot. to Ex-elude Grande Ex. 12.at 1. Similarly, a short-term study of “glucosamine hydrochloride in beverage form” — the first of its kind — found no evidence “that glucosamine is more effective than placebo in improving joint health” when assessing cartilage damage. Blood Decl. Mot. to Exclude .Grande Ex. 13 at 2, 7 (Kwoh, 2014). ' Nevertheless, some researchers performing clinical trials have found that glucosamine and chondroitin outperform placebo. The GAIT I study, for example, noticed significant improvement for those participants with moderate to severe OA pain. Grande Suppl. Report at 3. The 2014 LEGS study authors observed that participants experienced statistically significant improvement in joint space narrowing. Id. at 4. In addition, the 2015 Multicenter Osteoarthritis InterVEntion trial with SYSDOA (“the MOVES study”) conducted a randomized double-blind clinical trial comparing glucosamine and chondroitin with celecoxib. These researchers found that daily consumption of glucosamine and chondroitin are as effective as celecoxib in reducing pain for those with moderate to severe OA. Id. at 5. b. Meta-Analyses Meta-analyses pool the results of clinical trials “to arrive at a single figure to represent the totality of the studies reviewed.” Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence> supra, at 607. This system of methodically reviewing the literature often includes weighting the clinical studies and examining the cause of heterogeneity among the pooled clinical trials. See id. at 606-07, 725. Among types of medical evidence, meta-analysis is considered the strongest. Id. at 723. There have been no fewer than ten meta-analyses of clinical studies about the effects of glucosamine and chondroitin on joint pain, movement, and function. Other meta-analyses reviewed the clinical trials that examine whether glucosamine and chondroitin help reduce joint space narrowing. A review of the meta-analyses reveals that the effects of glucosamine and chon-droitin are similar to placebo, and therefore clinically insignificant. Willis Suppl. Decl. ¶¶ 44, 48. In 2014, for example, one study examined the results of twenty-five placebo-controlled clinical studies and declared, “[w]e are confident that glucosa-mine by and large has no clinically important effect.” Blood Decl. Mot. to Exclude Grande Ex. 3 at 11 (Eriksen, 2014); see also Decl. Blood Mot. to Exclude Grande Ex. 5 at 2 (Wu, 2013) (“[Glucosamine hydrochloride] is ineffective for pain reduction in patients with knee OA.”). Similarly, in 2010, another study examined ten blind randomized trials and concluded “that glu-cosamine, chondroitin, and their combination do not result in a relevant reduction of joint pain nor affect joint space narrowing compared with placebo.” Blood Decl. CC Ex. 55 at 9 (Wandel, 2010). Other studies examining the effects of chondroi-tin concluded that “[n]o robust evidence supports the usé of• chondroitin in [OA],” and “the [l]arge-scale, methodologically sound trials indicate that the symptomatic benefit is minimal to non-existent.” Blood Decl. Mot. to Exclude Grande Ex. 4 at 2 (Reichenbach, 2007). These meta-analyses all recognize that some clinical studies have shown glucosa-mine or glucosamine and chondroitin reduce joint pain and stiffness; however, most meta-analysts attribute these findings to industry bias. See, e.g., Blood Decl. CC Ex. 54 at 2 (Vlad, 2007) (“Heterogeneity among trials of glucosamine is larger than would be expected by chance. Gluco-samine hydrochloride is not effective [to treat OA pain]. Among trials with industry involvement, effect sizes were consistently higher. Potential explanations include the different glucosamine preparations, inadequate allocation concealment, and industry bias.”); Blood Decl. CC Ex. 55 at 000624 (Townheed, 2009) (“If only the best designed studies are included, the benefit in pain and WOMAC function is no longer present as shown....”). Willis reviewed all studies finding positive effects of glucosa-mine and chondroitin consumption and concluded that these studies suffered from poor design or bias. Willis Suppl. Decl. ¶ 49. According to Willis, Sonner’s expert witness, in 2014, Eriksen “published a very definitive evaluation” of whether industry bias alone accounted for findings that glu-cosamine and chondroitin reduced pain and stiffness in arthritic joints. Blood Decl. MSJ Ex. 16, Willis Dep. 36:19-38:7. Erik-sen concluded that “publication bias was, in fact, to blame for.. .what appeared to be a therapeutic effect, significant therapeutic effect of glucosamine sulfate in osteoarthritis.” Blood Decl. MSJ Ex. 16, Willis Dep. 38:1-7. Two meta-analyses have found a positive correlation between glucosamine and chon-droitin consumption and improvements in joint health. In 2000, for example, one study noted heterogeneity among clinical trials testing whether glucosamine and chondroitin improve pain and reduce joint space narrowing. Grande Report at 12; see also Blood Decl. Mot. to Exclude Grande Ex. 9 at 2 (McAlindon, 2000). Similarly, in 2013, another meta-analysis concluded that glucosamine sulfate “may have function modifying effects,” even though glucosa-mine hydrochloride was “ineffective for pain reduction in patients with knee OA.” Decl. Blood Mot. to.Exclude Grande Ex. 5 at 2 (Wu, 2013),. Grande concludes that the heterogeneity among meta-analyses and clinical trials proves that scientists remain divided about the efficacy of glucosamine and chondroitin as treatment for OA and joint pain. Although Willis acknowledges this heterogeneity, he attributes the positive results to publication bias or poor study design. c. Clinical Treatment Protocols To .assist practicing doctors in evaluating and treating patients, medical academies, such as the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (“AAOS”), American College of Rheumatology (“ACR”), and the National Institutes for Health and Care Excellence (“NIHCE”), create clinical practice guidelines. Willis.Suppl. Decl. ¶ 53; see also Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, supra, at 726. These medical acádemies develop the guidelines systematically, but provide only general guidance. None of these academies— AAOS, ACR, and NIHCE — recommends using glucosamine and chondroitin to manage symptoms or pain associated with OA. See Blood Decl. CC Ex. 61 at 7 (AAOS Guidelines); Blood Decl. CC Ex. 63 at 470 (ACR Guidelines); Blood Decl. CC Ex. 63 at 14 (NIHCE Guidelines). Dr. Steven Graboff, plaintiffs expert, a practicing orthopedic surgeon, confirms that “[gjlucosamine and chondroitin sulfate are not part of the general hierarchy of treatment for arthritis.” Graboff Decl. ¶ 36. d. In Vitro and Preclinical Animal Studies In vitro studies involve tissue explants or isolated cells in a tissue culture. Grande Decl. at 9; Willis Suppl. Decl. ¶ 26. These in vitro studies help researchers identify physiological and biochemical mechanisms worthy of further study. Willis Suppl. Decl. ¶27. Similarly, pre-clinical animal studies facilitate identification of hypotheses for future testing in human subjects. Id. Grande has identified numerous in vitro studies which suggest that glucosamine and chondroitin are effective pain inhibitors. One 2007 study found that glucosa-mine may inhibit cyclooxygenase-2, a common pain mediator. Grande Report at 10. Another study demonstrated that glucosa-mine and chondroitin inhibit inflammatory mediators and increase production of natural inflammatory inhibitors. Id. According to' Grande, these in vitro studies offer evidence that there is a mechanism for glucosamine and chondroitin to reduce joint pain and to improve joint function. Some preclinical animal studies suggest glucosamine and chondroitin may provide similar benefits in humans.' A study of guinea pigs found a connection between glucosamine and chondroitin and reduced cartilage destruction and reduced inflammatory activity. Id. Another preclinical trial involving canines found that glucosa-mine was “highly effective” at preventing cartilage breakdown. Id. Rabbits treated with glucosamine and chondroitin exhibited improved cartilage repair, as well. Id. at 11. These animal studies, Grande .contends, lend support to Premier’s claims about the benefits of drinking Joint Juice. On the other hand, Willis rejects the notion that these in vitro and animal studies provide any evidence of these positive effects because scientists have not been able to replicate these effects in humans. Willis Suppl. Decl. ¶¶ 80, 82-88. 2. The Bioavailability and Efficacy of Orally Ingested Glucosamine and Chondroitin Dr. Jerimiah Silbert has spent his entire career researching biosynthesis and cellular localization of chondroitin and other glycosaminoglycans. He and his colleagues measured and studied the levels of gluco-samine in blood serum after ingestion. In the course of this research and subsequent studies, Silbert formed the opinion that there are no achievable benefits to ingesting glucosamine and chondroitin alone or in combination. Silbert’s research does' not focus on cartilage; he studies the cells, namely chondrocytes. Koenig Decl. Ex. G, Silbert Dep. at 196:20-197:9. Silbert believes that benefits of drinking glucosa-mine and chondroitin supplements are categorically impossible to achieve. To start, he has explained that the quantity of chon-droitin in Joint Juice and other dietary supplements is “less than 1% the size of the completed functional cartilage chon-droitin sulfate” and cannot attach to the proteins, which are part of the complex structure that contributes to cartilage’s water retention and elasticity. Silber Decl. ¶ 9. The chondroitin found in blood plasma after consumption is “one four hundredth of’ the amount ingested, and therefore cannot be effective for the maintenance or repair of joint cartilage. Id. ¶ 11. To reach this conclusion, Silbert measured the amount of glucosamine in blood plasma after oral ingestion and found that the quantity remaining was too small to provide any benefit to cartilage. He discovered that as the 1,500 milligrams of ingested glucosamine works its way from the stomach, through the kidneys, to the liver, and into the blood stream, the amount of glucosamine diminishes over time. Once the glucosamine reaches the blood stream, very little remains: 0.9 mg/liter. Id. ¶ 12. In other words, the ingested molecule does not actually get into the joint cartilage. Silbert acknowledges that, in some instances, some orally ingested glucosamine and chondroitin make their way to the cartilage, but he contends that the amount remaining in the bloodstream is too small to provide any benefit. Koenig Decl. Ex. G, Silbert Dep. at 159:3-9 (“What’ I’m saying is, of course, there is something rapidly absorbed and bioavailable, but the amounts that are bioavailable are miniscule.”). According to Silbert, all studies of orally ingested glucosamine conducted after he published his paper have confirmed that the orally ingested glucosamine does not get into the cartilage. Blood Decl. MSJ Ex. 15, Silbert Dep. at 108:18-22. Sonner has introduced scientific research papers that generally confirm Silbert’s position. See, e.g., Blood Decl. Mot. to Exclude Grande Ex. 24 at 10 (Henrotin, 2013) (“Absorption of [glucosamine] after oral administration is limited, leading to low bioavailability (varying between animal species and human).”); id. Ex. 25 at 8 (Henrotin, 2012) (“[T]he weak effect of glucosamine reported by clinical trials can be attributed to the low concentrations of glucosamine available to joint tissues. Indeed, the competition that exists between glucosamine and glucose for cellular uptake favors transport of glucosamine in the intestine, liver and kidney, leaving little glucosamine available for uptake by the joint.”); id. Ex. 27 at 5(Block, 2010) (“We found no evidence for absorption of oral [chondroitin sulfate] into the circulation under any dosing regimen.”). I. Sonner’s Experience with Joint Juice In the fall of 2013, Sonner purchased a six-pack of eight-ounce “Ready-to-Drink” Joint Juice because she was experiencing shoulder pain and discomfort and hoped the product would relieve some of her pain. Koenig Decl. Ex. D, Sonner Dep. 41:2-25. After drinking Joint Juice for five consecutive days, she decided that she did not experience any relief and discontinued using the product. Id. at 24:16-24, 28:12-14. III. LEGAL STANDARD A. Motion for Summary Judgment A party is entitled to summary judgment when “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the mov-ant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The party who seeks summary judgment bears the initial responsibility of identifying an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). If the moving party satisfies this initial burden, the non-moving party must present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex, 477 U.S. at 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548. “Only disputes over' facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under governing law” are material. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). A genuine issue exists if the non-moving party presents evidence from which a reasonable fact-finder, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to that party, could resolve the material issue in his or her favor. Id. at 248-49, 106 S.Ct. 2505. B. Motion to Exclude Expert Witnesses To testify at trial as -an expert, Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence requires that the witness be qualified by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” Fed R. Evid. 702. Even if a witness is qualified as an expert in a particular field, any scientific, technical, or specialized testimony is admissible only if it (a) “will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue,” (b) “is based upon sufficient facts or data,” (c) “is the product of reliable principles and methods,” and (d) “the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.” Id. Rule 702 does not permit irrelevant or unreliable testimony .Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 589, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). Expert opinions are relevant if the knowledge underlying them has a “valid connection to the pertinent inquiry.” United States v. Sandoval-Mendoza, 472 F.3d 645, 654 (9th Cir.2006) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). “Expert testimony which does not relate to any issue in the case is not relevant and, ergo, non-helpful.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 590, 113 S.Ct. 2786 (citing 3 Weinstein & Berger ¶702[02], p, 702-18) (internal quotation marks omitted). Expert opinion testimony is reliable if such knowledge has a “basis in the knowledge and experience of [the relevant] discipline.” Id. at 592, 113 S.Ct. 2786, Courts should consider the following factors when evaluating whether an expert’s proposed testimony is reliable: (1) “whether a theory or technique can be (and has been) tested,” (2) “whether the theory or technique has been subjected to peer review and publication,” (3) the known or potential error rate of the particular scientific theory or technique, and (4) the degree to which the scientific technique or theory is accepted in a relevant scientific community. Id. at 593-94, 113 S.Ct. 2786. This list is not exhaustive, however, and the standard is flexible. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 151, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). The Daubert, inquiry “applies not-only to testimony based on ’scientific’ knowledge but also to testimony based on ’technical’ and other ’specialized’ knowledge.” Id. at 141, 119 S.Ct. 1167. The' task is not to “decid[e] whether the expert is right or wrong, just whether his testimony has substance such that it would be helpful to a jury.” Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc., 738 F.3d 960, 969-70 (9th Cir.2013). Courts may not exclude testimony because it is impeachable. Id. at 969. “Vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.” Daubert, 509 U.S. at 596, 113 S.Ct. 2786. The focus of the inquiry is thus on the principles and methodology employed, not the conclusions reached by the expert. See id. at 595, 113 S.Ct. 2786. Ultimately, the purpose of the assessment is to exclude speculative or unreliable testimony to ensure accurate, unbiased decision-making by the trier of fact. “Nothing in either Daubert or the Federal Rules of Evidence requires a district court to admit opinion evidence that is connected to existing data only by the ipse dixit of the expert.” Kumho, 526 U.S. at 157, 119 S.Ct. 1167 (internal quotation marks omitted). C. Motion to Strike Errata Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(e) permits a deponent to make changes to his deposition testimony “in form or substance” provided the deponent (1) requests review of the deposition to make corrections, (2) signs a statement listing the changes and the reasons for making them, and (3) submits changes within 30 days of receiving notice that the transcript is available. Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(l)-(2). “Rule 30(e) is to be used for corrective, and not contradictory, changes.” Hambleton Bros. Lumber Co. v. Balkin Enters., Inc., 397 F.3d 1217, 1225-26 (9th Cir.2005); see also Thorn v. Sundstrand Aerospace Corp., 207 F.3d 383, 389 (7th Cir.2000) (“[A] - change of substance which actually contradicts the transcript is impermissible unless it can plausibly be represented as the correction of an error in transcription, such as dropping a ’not.’”). The Ninth Circuit his interpreted Rule 30(e) to prevent “sham” corrections — “changes offered solely to create a material factual dispute in a tactical attempt to evade an unfavorable summary judgment.” Hambleton Bros., 397 F.3d at 1225. Thus, even though the rule allows deponents to make changes “in form or substance,” it does not allow the deponent “to alter what was said under oath... .A deposition is not a take home examination.” Garcia v. Pueblo Country Club, 299 F.3d 1233, 1242 n. 5 (10th Cir.2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). IV. DISCUSSION A. Premier's Motion for Summary Judgment California’s UCL prohibits any “unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500. Each prong is separately actionable. Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1127 (9th Cir.2009). The CLRA prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1770. The gravamen of Sonner’s claims for violations of both statutes is that the statements used to sell Joint Juice — individually and collectively — are likely to deceive a reasonable consumer. See Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir.2008) (explaining that the UCL and CLRA use the “reasonable consumer test”). 1. What message does Premier convey to consumers about the effects of drinking Joint Juice? Sonner claims Joint Juice does not provide any benefit to those who drink it because the glucosamine and chondroitin it contains are not bioavailable in sufficiently high quantities to produce any positive effect, meaning the express messages— that Joint Juice will help keep joints flexible and lubricated — are false or misleading. In addition, she contends Premier’s packaging and advertisements send an additional implied message: that Joint Juice can relieve joint pain and stiffness in arthritic joints. There is no dispute that Joint Juice expressly informs buyers that daily consumption will improve joint flexibility and help lubricate the joints, but the parties disagree vehemently about whether or not Premier’s packages and advertisements convey implied messages. Specifically, Sonner contends that Premier promotes Joint Juice as a substance that can relieve joint pain and stiffness associated ■ with OA. Premier insists that the messages address only general health benefits and that the disclaimer on the back of the package disabuses users of any notion that Joint Juice treats or provides relief for OA. In any event, Premier challenges Sonner’s ability to prove the existence of any implied pain or stiffness message in the absence of a consumer survey. The California statutes Sonner invokes recognize claims even where representations may not be misleading in isolation, but are deceptive when considering the package and advertisement as a whole. Williams, 552 F.3d at 939 n. 3 (interpreting California’s UCL and CLRA); see also Lima v. Gateway, Inc., 710 F.Supp.2d 1000, 1007 (C.D.Cal.2010) (“[Statements. . .cannot be considered in isolation because they contribute to the deceptive context of the advertising as a whole.”). At the very minimum, Sonner must present some evidence that “a significant portion of the consuming public or of targeted consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances, could be misled” by the statements on Joint Juice packages. Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal.App.4th 496, 508, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 486 (2003). a. Evidence of Implied Messaging California courts have provided little guidance .for how to evaluate whether an advertisement conveys an implied message or what that message is. Federal courts interpreting the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45(a)(1), otherwise known as the Lan-ham Act, may provide some guidance because the UCL is often called one of the “little FTC Acts” enacted by states in the 1930s. Lavie, 105 Cal.App.4th at 505, 129 Cal.Rptr.2d 486. “Because of this relationship between the UCL and the Federal Trade Commission Act, judicial interpretations of the federal act have persuasive force.” Id. (internal alterations omitted). Like the UCL and CLRA, “the Lanham Act encompasses more than blatant falsehoods; it embraces innuendo,, indirect intimations, and ambiguous suggestions.” Vidal Sassoon, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Co., 661 F.2d 272, 277 (2d Cir.1981) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Southland Sod Farms v. Stover Seed Co., 108 F.3d 1134, 1140 (9th Cir.1997) (“Even if an advertisement is not literally false, relief is available under Lanham Act § 43(a) if it can be shown that the advertisement has misled, confused, or deceived the consuming public.”). Federal courts interpreting the Lanham Act have required plaintiffs asserting implied-message claims to present “proof that the advertising actually conveyed the implied message and thereby deceived a significant portion of the recipients.” William H. Morris Co. v. Grp. W, Inc., 66 F.3d 255, 258 (9th Cir.1995). Such proof is “critical.” Id. Occasionally, “a facial analysis of the product name or advertising” may lead to the conclusion “that the consumer will unavoidably receive a false message.” Novartis Consumer Health, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson-Merck Consumer Pharm. Co., 290 F.3d 578, 587 (3d Cir.2002). Some courts in this circuit have concluded, however, that they cannot evaluate whether representations are impliedly misleading without extrinsic evidence demonstrating “that the challenged advertisements tend to mislead or confuse consumers.” CKE" Rest. v. Jack in the Box, Inc., 494 F.Supp.2d 1139, 1143-44 (C.D.Cal.2007) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Consumer surveys are the most common form of extrinsic evidence. See, e.g., Novartis, 290 F.3d at 588 (“[Plaintiff] should have been required to • prove through a consumer survey that the name and advertising actually misled or had a tendency to mislead consumers into believing that the product provided nighttime heartburn relief superior to any other product in the market.”); Ries v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, No. 10-01139 RS, 2013 WL 1287416, at *6 (N.D.Cal. Mar. 28, 2013) (“[T]o prevail, plaintiff must demonstrate by extrinsic evidence, such as consumer survey evidence, that the challenged statements tend to .mislead consumers.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); LG Elecs. U.S.A., Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp., 661 F.Supp.2d 940, 950 (N.D.Ill.2009) (“[S]ome courts have held that the success of a plaintiffs implied falsity claim usually turns on the persuasiveness of a consumer survey.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). This is an area, however, where the California statutes break ranks with the federal statutes: California courts have expressly rejected the “view that a plaintiff must produce a consumer survey or similar extrinsic evidence to prevail on a claim that the public is likely to be misled by a representation.” Consumer Advocates v. Echostar Satellite Corp., 113 Cal.App.4th 1351, 1362, 8 Cal.Rptr.3d 22 (2003); see also Colgan v. Leatherman Tool Grp., Inc., 135 Cal.App.4th 663, 681-82, 38 Cal.Rptr.3d 36 (2006) (holding that federal cases requiring “’extrinsic evidence,’ such as expert testimony or consumer surveys... do not accurately reflect California law.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)). Thus, while “[surveys and expert testimony regarding consumer assumptions and expectations may be offered,” they are not required to prove consumers held a false belief communicated by the advertisements. Clemens v. Da-imlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017, 1026 (9th Cir.2008). With that background in mind, there are three types of evidence present in this case: the advertisement itself, Son-ner’s experiences, and the results of the marketing research surveys commissioned by Premier. Premier cannot run from the fact that it sells Joint Juice. The name alone implies that the whole point to drinking the product is to receive joint health benefits. Sonner testified that she believed Joint Juice, like ibuprofen, would provide pain relief. While an isolated anecdotal incident is likely insufficient to show that the reasonable consumer understands this implied pain message, see id. at 1026, Son-ner’s account is some evidence of Premier’s unspoken message. Sonner has offered more evidence of consumers’ behavior: Premier’s market research. The Schireson, Zoomerang, and MindReader surveys provide a foundation from which a reasonable jury could conclude targeted customers believed Joint Juice would relieve joint pain and stiffness. Each of these studies found that the vast majority of consumers purchased Joint Juice because they suffered arthritis and joint pain and stiffness. The MindReader survey, in particular, provides evidence that nearly a third of respondents tried Joint Juice because they saw Premier’s advertisements. See Blood Decl. CC Ex. 39 at 132515. That many of these consumers cited joint pain as the principal reason they tried and continued to use Joint Juice is evidence that may persuade a reasonable jury that Premier’s ads subliminally encouraged people to buy the product to relieve joint pain. Sonner need not hire an expert to conduct another consumer survey to survive summary judgment when there is sufficient evidence from Premier’s own marketing files to lend support for her claims. b. The Impact of the Disclaimer There remains the additional issue of whether the disclaimer on the back of Joint Juice products disabuses all reasonable consumers of the notion that the product relieves OA symptoms. On this point, district courts are apparently divided. One court has granted a motion to dismiss claims based on the defendant’s alleged implied message about the positive effects of taking glucosamine and chon-droitin to relieve OA symptoms. The district court reasoned that because the “packaging directly contradicts any supposed reference or inference to [OA] by disclaiming that it treats any disease,” the claims could not advance. McCrary v. The Elations Co., LLC, No. EDCV 13-0242 JGB OPX, 2013 WL 6402217, at *4 (C.D.Cal. Apr. 24, 2013). In contrast, another district court held that “[t]he presence of a disclaimer.,. does not require dismissal of the fraudulent advertising claims.” Dorfman v. Nutramax Labs., Inc., No. 13CV0873 WQH RBB, 2013 WL 5353043, at *11 (S.D.Cal. Sept. 23, 2013); Johns v. Bayer Corp., No. 09CV1935 DMS (JMA), 2010 WL 2573493, at *4 (S.D.Cal. June 24, 2010) (refusing to grant a motion to dismiss false advertising claims because the packaging had a disclaimer). Under Ninth Circuit law, the latter group of authorities has the stronger position. When confronted with whether inclusion of an ingredient list shields manufacturers from suits for false advertising, the Ninth Circuit rejected the assertion that “reasonable consumers should be expected to look beyond misleading representations on the front of the box to discover the truth frdm the ingredient list in small print on the side of the box.” Williams, 552 F.3d at 939. This binding authority therefore strongly suggests that courts cannot hold as a matter of law that disclaimers vitiate claims for misleading representations. Moreover, California law generally reserves for the jury the question of whether a reasonable consumer is likely to be deceived, Asis Internet Servs. v. Sub-scriberbase Inc., No. 09-3503 SC, 2010 WL 1267763, at *2 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 1, 2010) (collecting cases), and thus a jury should typically review the package as a whole to evaluate the impact of the disclaimer. In addition, there is evidence in this record that the disclaimer did not alter consumers’ views about the efficacy of glucosa-mine and chondroitin for treating joint pain and stiffness associated with OA. Premier’s marketing surveys show consistently that consumers purchased Joint Juice because they had joint pain. These survey results raise an inference that people believed Joint Juice would provide pain relief despite the disclaimer on the back. Accordingly, a triable issue of fact remains. In sum, there are three types of representations at issue: (1) implied claims that Joint Juice relieves joint pain and stiffness associated with OA; (2) implied claims that Joint Juice provides palliative effects for healthy joints; and (3) implied and express claims that Joint Juice will furnish general joint health benefits. Sonner has presented sufficient circumstantial evidence that consumers understood and act