Earlier this week a federal court decided that TTB’s approval for Bud Light Lime Lime-A-Rita provides a “safe harbor” to protect certain label elements. Largely on account of this safe harbor, the court dismissed the class action lawsuit. The plaintiff had contended that the reference to “light” on the Rita products was misleading because it leaves an impression that the flavored malt beverages are low in calories and carbohydrates.

The Cruz v. A-B decision is in stark contrast with the Tito’s decision of three months ago. In the vodka dispute, Tito tried to locate the same safe harbor, but got pushed back into the middle of a heavy storm.

There are many class action lawsuits filed against alcohol beverage companies during the past year. They include Templeton, Angel’s Envy, Tincup, Whistlepig, Jim Beam, Maker’s Mark, Bulleit and Breckenridge. In most if not all, the defendant brands have argued that the TTB approval should create a safe harbor. But so far, until the Lime-A-Rita case, no judge has agreed that the COLA should protect the brand.

The Lime-A-Rita case may be an outlier because, at least according to Judge Birotte, the plaintiffs did a horrendous job with the pleadings. Secondly, TTB has a fairly specific policy regarding “light” labeling, and it appears that A-B complied...

Continue Reading Leave a Comment

Another week, another lawsuit, another whiskey brand.

The above video features Bulleit Bourbon and covers the labeling and legal controversies swirling around the whiskey industry.

Bloomberg did a good job with the video, published a few days ago. It needs more views than the 1,250 as of this writing. The images are beautiful. The video avoids the sensationalism and oversimplification common to so many other mainstream media stories about whiskey. The shots of whiskey bigshots like Chuck Cowdery and Jim Rutledge are a bonus.

Bulleit got sued June 1, five days after the video surfaced. The complaint relies in large part on the Bloomberg video. Once again, as with Tito’s, Maker’s, Angel’s, Tincup, Beam, Templeton, the lawsuit alleges deceptive labeling. This one is noteworthy, though, because Bulleit is owned by Diageo, “the world’s largest liquor conglomerate” as per the video. The label is above, and a recent label approval is here.

In a rather stunning example of the pot calling the kettle black, the complaint prattles on and on about how the whiskey is actually made by the Kirin Brewing Company, god knows where, even though it is fairly easy to see that the whiskey is made by one of the finest whiskey producers in the world, right where claimed. TTB records show two...

Continue Reading Leave a Comment

I am very pleased to announce that we will be joining with Chicago law firm Locke Lord to provide the following webinar. Simon and Tom have lots of experience representing consumer products companies in defending class action lawsuits. They have been closely involved with the wave of litigation that has descended upon the alcohol beverage industry in the past couple of years. Robert has worked with Simon and Tom on some of these cases in the past, and has more than 25 years of experience focused on how federal and state governments, and private plaintiffs, work together to affect alcohol beverage labels, formulas and marketing.

 

Locke Lord and Lehrman Beverage Law invite you to

Spirits Industry Under Fire Webinar: Thursday, June 4, 2015 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm ET

 

Locke Lord and Lehrman Beverage Law invite brewers, distillers, and producers, distributors and retailers of beer, wine and spirits to a free webinar.

Register Now Locke Lord Speakers Thomas J. Cunningham Partner Chicago T: 312-443-1731 Email

  Simon A. Fleischmann Partner Chicago T: 312-443-0462 Email     Lehrman Beverage Law Speaker

Continue Reading Leave a Comment

Whoa! The first of the “handmade” cases wrapped up within the past week. On May 1, 2015 the U.S. District Court in Tallahassee dismissed the class action lawsuit against Maker’s Mark “with prejudice.” The now-defunct case alleged that Beam Suntory was bs’ing about whether the bourbon was “handmade.” The court seems to be saying “handmade” is a puff term, like “delicious.”

The term at issue has been amorphous, over the centuries, and Judge Hinkle seems to have dumped that burden on the plaintiffs:

the plaintiffs have been unable to articulate a consistent, plausible explanation of what they understood ‘handmade’ to mean in this context. This is understandable; nobody could believe a bourbon marketed this widely at this volume is made entirely or predominantly by hand. This order grants the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted.

The Judge makes a good point, saying:

But the term ‘handmade’ is no longer used in that sense. The same dictionary now gives a circular definition:  ‘handmade’ means ‘[m]ade by hand.’ Id. But the term obviously cannot be used literally to describe bourbon. One can knit a sweater by hand, but one cannot make bourbon by hand. Or at least, one cannot make bourbon by hand at the volume...

Continue Reading Leave a Comment

Yet another lawsuit about beverage labeling. This time it’s Blue Moon beer. The class action lawsuit (Parent v. MillerCoors LLC) was filed April 24, 2015 in state court, in San Diego. It alleges that MillerCoors is tricking consumers about whether Blue Moon is craft beer.

There are now literally dozens of class action lawsuits, filed all around the country in just the past couple of years, in state and federal courts, against many of the most popular beer and spirits products in the country. Wine is notably absent, so far.

The complaint alleges that MillerCoors:

1. makes more than 2.4 billion gallons of beer a year — about 12 times what the prevailing Brewers Association definition, for a craft brewer, allows
2. falsely portrays the product as “artfully crafted,” when in fact it’s a macrobrew
3. hides the MillerCoors affiliation under various fake entities
4. misleads consumers into paying up to 50% more, via omissions and misrepresentations

For good measure, the suit alleges:

Defendant’s business practices are immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous, and cause substantial injury to consumers, including Plaintiff and the other members of the Class. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful business practices, Class members suffered injury in that they paid a premium price for a product that would...

Continue Reading Leave a Comment