There is no question that the makers of this product were attempting to deceive customers. There is no reason to label “sugar” as “evaporated cane juice”, other than to deceive people who are specifically looking for sugar. And while it is tempting to declare this woman stupid, would she have been considered stupid if it had been “evaporated beet juice”? Or evaporated orange juice? In fact, I would submit that most people have no idea what “cane” is. And looking at the “sugars” part of the nutritional breakdown tells you nothing, since it doesn’t distinguish between free sugars (table sugar, etc.), and sugars that are still in their natural form (the sugars in oranges or kale).
This is blatantly deceptive. Does it warrant a lawsuit? Of course not. But this is as bad as labeling nitrates as “celery juice”. There is no reason to use these phrases, other than to confuse.
Sometimes to add sweetness to a food item one will use a juice from a plant containg sugars in them. To divulge exactly what is added is the correct thing to do. There are other things in juices so that substituting the word sugar for the word juice is not giving enough information. The plaintiff is making a gross discernment error and this action could be a signal to alert her friends, family, and possibly mental health authorities about her state of mind to be making the claim she has made.
Bullshit.
Even stupid people know Jelly Beans are full of sugar.