New Lawsuits Filed
No Mulligan to Sweet Tea Lemonade for Flubbed Calorie Scorecardc
Schrode v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, No. 1:21-cv-03159 (N.D. Ill. June 11, 2021).
Arnold Palmers are in the drink again after a consumer filed a putative class action in Illinois federal court challenging the "Zero / No Calories" labeling on some of an iced-tea company's beverages. Relying on Merriam-Webster to capture the true essence of "zero," the consumer claims that these labels are misleading and deceptive because the drinks contain more than zero-and as many as 15 (15!)-calories.
According to the complaint, after taking a stroke penalty, the half lemonade, half iced-tea summer favorite then found the bunker by using allegedly skewed reference amounts customarily consumed (RACCs) and nutrient facts panels to downplay the actual calorie content of the drinks. The defendant allegedly applied the RACC for noncarbonated beverages (12 oz.) so that it could round the calorie content down to "zero" under Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations. At another point, the consumer claims, the defendant used a misleading "dual column" nutrition facts panel purportedly to trick consumers into believing that they will drink only the serving size of the beverage. The consumer seeks to certify a multistate class of consumers for violations of Illinois consumer protection laws, breach of warranty, misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
Hemp Tea with 0.0% THC? Well, That's Just, Like, Your Opinion
Miller v. Total Life Changes LLC, No. 1:21-cv-00095 (S.D. Ga. June 15, 2021).
A lawsuit filed in Georgia federal court alleges that the defendant's Raspberry Lemonade Tea misleadingly claims that, though it contains "broad-spectrum hemp extract," it has 0.0% THC. After deciding to purchase and consume the Raspberry Lemonade Tea products, however, the plaintiff tested positive for THC during a random drug test at work. The consumer alleges that she specifically relied on the company's advertising and labeling of the Raspberry Lemonade Tea as THC-free, particularly since some of the defendant's other tea products are not advertised as THC-free.
We imagine the consumer would beg to differ with the Dude that these labels are just a matter of opinion. She seeks to certify a class of consumers and asserts claims for unjust enrichment, breach of express warranty, fraudulent concealment, and violations of the Georgia Fair Business Practices Act.
Yo Ho Ho and a Bottle of Too-Young Rum
Tedeschi v. Diageo North America Inc., No. 1:21-cv-04940 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2021).
A disappointed Illinois rum enthusiast claims that his $45 bottle of rum wasn't actually aged for 23 years as he had thought. In a new putative class action, he alleges he was duped by the number "23" and other allegedly misleading statements about the rum's aging process that appear on the label of Ron Zacapa 23 Centenario Rum. According to the complaint, the rum is marketed to convince consumers that it is aged for 23 years and using the traditional "Sistema Solera" aging process (which the reasonable and typical consumer is obviously well versed in). Despite recognizing that the product does not violate federal regulations mandating that statements of age for distilled spirits appear as "__ years old," the plaintiff claims that consumers expect prominent numbers on the front labels of spirits to refer to the age of the youngest spirit used. For this complaint, that number is "23."
In reality, the rum is a blend of rums aged between six and 23 years. The plaintiff claims that the product's blending of rums of different ages without disclosing that fact on the front label is misleading to consumers. He is pursuing causes of action for violations of Illinois's consumer protection law, breaches of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud.
Peeling Back the Layers of Onion Rings Snacks Labeling
Hiltz v. Inventure Foods Inc., No. 1:21-cv-03140 (N.D. Ill. June 10, 2021).
The maker of TGI Fridays Onion Rings snacks faces a putative class action alleging that the snacks' labeling is misleading because it gives the impression that the snacks are made with real onion. The plaintiff claims that the snacks instead are made with ingredients so lowly that they wouldn't even bring a tear to your eye: onion powder and onion flavor. These ingredients, so reasons our onion rings snacks fanatic, lack the "oniony" flavor that consumers love and the health benefits afforded by onions (that consumers presumably search out in chips, snacks, and onion rings).
Although the plaintiff concedes the snacks' label says "naturally and artificially flavored," he complains the font is very small and difficult to see. If he had known the truth about these snacks, the plaintiff contends, he would not have purchased them or paid as much as he did. The plaintiff seeks to represent classes of Illinois, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, Rhode Island, and Florida consumers and asserts claims for violations of Illinois's consumer protection statute, breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and unjust enrichment.
To view the full article, please click here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
