Consumer vs Blue Moon class action lawsuit

Dumb. Who cares???? If you like the beer drink it. If you don't like it, don't drink it.

 

IANAL, but here is how I see it as a layperson. The label says Blue Moon is craft beer. One can of course argue that ownership my MC has nothing to do with that, and that being made in one of MC's large breweries has nothing to do with that. After all there is no official definition of 'craft beer', the BA definition has no particular legal standing, etc. But the fact that MC appears to attempt to hide who actually owns BM, and where it is made, implies that the do accept that the "craft beer" means something other than what they produce at their large breweries. In which case by calling it craft they are making a false claim. If they thought that the consumers BM is aimed at considered it possible to make craft beer at a large brewery, owned by a company such as MC, they would not hide those facts. That is what the "craftiness" is all about.
Now of course some people disapprove of the preference some consumers have for beers from breweries of a particular size or ownership. One response a beer company can make is what ABI has done with their Budweiser brand, and to be "proudly macro". That is not the path MC has gone with BM, and I think it is clear that it because they believe that BM consumers (unlike Bud, or for that matter Miller Lite consumers) would not accept that macro means quality. And we can laugh at people who consider themselves snobs vis a vis BMC, and yet who enjoy Blue Moon, and cannot be bothered to google ownership (I am old enough to recall when someone walking into a bar did not have device with them enabling them to search the internet, and I even know some people who would find that odd behavior even now) - but I do not think it completely unreasonable for them to say they have been deceived.

 

“…the fact that MC appears to attempt to hide who actually owns BM, and where it is made, implies that the do accept that the "craft beer" means something other than what they produce at their large breweries.” There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that MillerCoors is purposefully hiding where Blue Moon beer is produced.

“In which case by calling it craft they are making a false claim.” I am not a lawyer so I will await the decision by the judge on this particular aspect.

Cheers!

 

Lawyers: skimming money off other people's efforts for centuries.

 

That's an awfully long inference to draw from that action. Not offering up their association to MillerCoors could mean a lot of things, but I think suggesting that it means that don't believe their beer is considered craft isn't one of them. I'm pretty sure if you gave the marketers and brewers behind Blue Moon a truth serum and asked them if Blue Moon was a craft beer, they would answer "yes". This is because once you get beyond the Brewers Association definition and into what the word "craft" means in common parlance, Blue Moon *is* a craft beer.

Again, this is simply untrue, unless you're operating on the BA definition of the word.

Let's look at it with an intentionally absurd example--say the BA decided that the word "beer" means only alcoholic grain beverages that were produced by breweries who brew at specific times of the day. Would you agree that any brewery that brewed at different times was promoting a false claim by calling their beverage "beer"?

As noted, that's an intentionally absurd example that is intended to prove a point. The BA doesn't own the word "craft". Restricting other businesses from using the word's generic definition because that generic definition doesn't match the way the BA has chosen to define it is simply infeasible.

The package labeled Blue Moon contains exactly what it says it contains. It is on the consumers who care about company ownership to find that information out, assuming that the information is relatively easy to access (and in this case, it is). The bottom line is that you have the right to expect labels to accurately portray the contents of a package, but that same right doesn't apply to labeling products with parent company names.

If we required all companies to label the true producer of a given product, that would change a great deal about commerce, and beyond the beer industry. Case in point: grocery stores commonly sell products under their "house" label/brand as a cheaper alternative to brand names. Next to the Kraft Mac & Cheese, you will inevitably see Safeway Mac & Cheese or Hy-Vee Mac & Cheese, and yet those cheaper brands make no mention of who produced the food inside, since it certainly wasn't the grocery store itself.

The consumer expectation to know what they are buying is reasonable, in general. But even reasonable expectations have limits of reasonability. Expecting to know the ownership structure of the company who makes every product you consume is not reasonable, and that is essentially the expectation being put forth by this particular lawsuit.

 

It was 4 years ago, but it looks like Toronado SD.

 

That's an awfully long inference to draw from that action. Not offering up their association to MillerCoors could mean a lot of things, but I think suggesting that it means that don't believe their beer is considered craft isn't one of them. I'm pretty sure if you gave the marketers and brewers behind Blue Moon a truth serum and asked them if Blue Moon was a craft beer, they would answer "yes". This is because once you get beyond the Brewers Association definition and into what the word "craft" means in common parlance, Blue Moon *is* a craft beer.

I did not say the marketers at Blue Moon believe BM is not craft beer. I believe that they believe that a significant portion of their customers, were those customers fully informed, would not so consider it. Because while BA cannot decide what the term means, in fact the BA definition is not entirely arbitrary and has much to do with the lay definition of "craft". The usage of the term "craft beer" arose to refer to the products of small breweries, and it arose at the time of a wider social movement to local, "artisanal" and "non-corporate" food. IMO while many people who enjoy craft beer do not participate in or even like those larger movements (and not, many who do not like those larger movements do not like the term "craft beer") the terms in just about all its uses by consumers retains those connotations.


This seems to me the most economical explanation of a marketing strategy that obscures MC'Ts relationship to BM.



"Again, this is simply untrue, unless you're operating on the BA definition of the word.

Let's look at it with an intentionally absurd example--say the BA decided that the word "beer" means only alcoholic grain beverages that were produced by breweries who brew at specific times of the day. Would you agree that any brewery that brewed at different times was promoting a false claim by calling their beverage "beer"?

As noted, that's an intentionally absurd example that is intended to prove a point. The BA doesn't own the word "craft". Restricting other businesses from using the word's generic definition because that generic definition doesn't match the way the BA has chosen to define it is simply infeasible."

I agree. But I think that the usage by most consumers overlaps closely with the BA definition, and the strategy of both calling BM "craft" and avoiding mention of MC ownership or that BM is brewed in a large MC brewery, is consistent with a strategy to deceive at least some of those consumers - and I find it hard to explain the strategy otherwise.


"The package labeled Blue Moon contains exactly what it says it contains. It is on the consumers who care about company ownership to find that information out, assuming that the information is relatively easy to access (and in this case, it is)."

A non beernerd walks into say, a gas station. He sees Bud Lite, Bud, and Blue Moon. He is not particularly concerned about belgian style vs AAL, but he associates BMC products with swill. BM is not a BMC product, since it says nothing about any of those big companies, and it seems more to resemble stuff like Sam Adams and Sierra Nevada - heck it even says 'craft beer" He is supposed to whip out his smartphone and google it? Why would he do that? And what if he does not have a smartphone (this suit includes drinkers from some time ago, I imagine) He is supposed to go home and get on his PC to google it?


"The bottom line is that you have the right to expect labels to accurately portray the contents of a package, but that same right doesn't apply to labeling products with parent company names.

It is true that is not an established right. I think in this case the lack of such labeling speaks to something more.

If we required all companies to label the true producer of a given product, that would change a great deal about commerce, and beyond the beer industry. Case in point: grocery stores commonly sell products under their "house" label/brand as a cheaper alternative to brand names. Next to the Kraft Mac & Cheese, you will inevitably see Safeway Mac & Cheese or Hy-Vee Mac & Cheese, and yet those cheaper brands make no mention of who produced the food inside, since it certainly wasn't the grocery store itself.

It if says Safeway brand, that makes it obvious it is a store brand. In some cases generic product names are more deceptive than that, but I think rarely do they attempt to give the impression of being in a different subcategory.

It would really only be the case where there is a subcategory based on ownership, batch size etc. Amish furniture, or whatever.

The consumer expectation to know what they are buying is reasonable, in general. But even reasonable expectations have limits of reasonability. Expecting to know the ownership structure of the company who makes every product you consume is not reasonable, and that is essentially the expectation being put forth by this particular lawsuit.

As I said IANAL, and I am persuaded this case will not win in our courts. I believe the things I have said about the meaning of the term 'craft brewing" are true, but not necessarily clear cut enough or provable enough to stand up in court. But I do believe that MC with BM (and AB with Shock Top) are being deceptive, and that some consumers are paying a (small) premium they would not otherwise pay.

I also think (as I said in the other thread) there are alternative approaches to improving transparency on this issue.

 

I bring up the Blue Moon team's personal opinion about their beer as a way to point out that they are marketing the beer in the way they feel best represents what it is and trying to avoid the way the preconception of certain consumers might taint their opinion as to the nature of the product. They are trying, on a fundamental level, to get people to associate the product with its actual characteristics, rather than the noise about who owns it.

I feel that it's a pretty fair way to counteract marketing that preys on consumers preconceptions to paint all BMC beer as "swill" (more on this in a minute).

The point is that Safeway doesn't actually produce *any* of the products that carry its brand name.

While not entirely arbitrary (I suppose including restrictions on types of ingredients used speaks somewhat to "craft"), it doesn't help that the BA seems to change the guidelines for defining craft based on who they want to include, rather than based on some established and clear definition of what is or isn't "craft".

I personally have no objection to the practice of increasing the annual production limits or changing the ingredient requirements to include the brewers that they feel are worthy of the support offered by the BA. In fact, I think that as a group that aims to speak for brewers without the same level of resources as the BMC brewers, modifying that definition is probably a good thing. But the fluidity of that definition also harms their ability to speak to a consensus definition of "craft". It's clear that the definition matters, not for the sake of Craft Beer, but for the sake of keeping the correct brewers in the fold.

That's why I say it's arbitrary. A true attempt to define craft would see the definition remain the same while brewers would find themselves included or excluded as they adhered to or departed from that definition. As far as I'm aware, the International Trappist Association doesn't go changing its guidelines to make sure certain brewers remain in the group, for one example...

To me, this example illustrates exactly why Blue Moon *needs* to be able to market their beer in the way they do, with respect to the qualities of the product being sold rather than the ownership.

In this case, Blue Moon's BMC association would have led this particular consumer to look to another product based on a faulty and incorrect assumption regarding all beer produced by BMC. In reality, the packaging and name are aligned more with the product inside the container than the ownership association.

If the non-beernerd actually cares about the name of the company that owns the beer he produced, then yes, I would expect him to Google it to find out who owns the beer he is considering buying. If he is concerned about buying a product that isn't "swill", then I would argue that Blue Moon's marketing is working to connect a consumer with the type of product they desire, since the branding suggests that Blue Moon is not "swill".

And this sort of gets back to the plaintiff, Mr. Parent. The fact that he willing drank Blue Moon for multiple years indicates that he enjoyed the product and felt that it was fairly priced. The fact that the only way he discovered that he was being harmed was by doing the very thing he could have done before he ever consumed a single drop of Blue Moon speaks, to me, to the fact that he wasn't really being harmed at all.

I'm not a lawyer either, so I'll simply say this: at the very least, his lawsuit is disingenuous.

I guess the bottom line for me is that I feel companies have an obligation to accurately advertise the nature of the product they are selling, but not the ownership or location of the production facility where the product is produced. Especially in cases where the true ownership is so easily determined. If people feel strongly about not purchasing products made by certain producers, then it is their prerogative to make the effort to determine who produces their products. Anyone who doesn't feel the need to put forth any effort clearly doesn't care enough for it to matter one way or another.

As far as label transparency goes, I'd much rather this kind of effort be spent on requiring producers to include bottle/can dating on their product, as that has a much greater impact on me as a consumer than the name of the ownership company.

 

I bring up the Blue Moon team's personal opinion about their beer as a way to point out that they are marketing the beer in the way they feel best represents what it is and trying to avoid the way the preconception of certain consumers might taint their opinion as to the nature of the product. They are trying, on a fundamental level, to get people to associate the product with its actual characteristics, rather than the noise about who owns it.

I feel that it's a pretty fair way to counteract marketing that preys on consumers preconceptions to paint all BMC beer as "swill" (more on this in a minute).


So. Consumers are wrong to try to avoid BMC (because of the all powerful craft beer marketing machine?) and so it is appropriate to mislead them.

This would justify lying about the orgin of wines (because really Central Coast wines can be quite as good as Napa) about organics (when the consumer preference is health based on not environmentalism based) and about GMO status. About Kosher status (because the flying spaghetti monster) Instead of making the case to consumers, keep them in the dark because their preferences are not legitimate


The point is that Safeway doesn't actually produce *any* of the products that carry its brand name.

No googling is needed to know that.


While not entirely arbitrary (I suppose including restrictions on types of ingredients used speaks somewhat to "craft"), it doesn't help that the BA seems to change the guidelines for defining craft based on who they want to include, rather than based on some established and clear definition of what is or isn't "craft".

I personally have no objection to the practice of increasing the annual production limits or changing the ingredient requirements to include the brewers that they feel are worthy of the support offered by the BA. In fact, I think that as a group that aims to speak for brewers without the same level of resources as the BMC brewers, modifying that definition is probably a good thing. But the fluidity of that definition also harms their ability to speak to a consensus definition of "craft". It's clear that the definition matters, not for the sake of Craft Beer, but for the sake of keeping the correct brewers in the fold.

That's why I say it's arbitrary. A true attempt to define craft would see the definition remain the same while brewers would find themselves included or excluded as they adhered to or departed from that definition. As far as I'm aware, the International Trappist Association doesn't go changing its guidelines to make sure certain brewers remain in the group, for one example...

At this poiint the gap between BBC and Yuengling on the one hand, and the Macros on the other, is so huge they could easily establish a production amount that would last a very long time. But anyway, I said not entirely arbitrary. I don't think the games to keep BBC inside are really that important. Mostly craft beer is about size, and most craft beer is made by breweries quite a bit smaller than BBC.

It does seem some of this is about BBC vs BM though,



To me, this example illustrates exactly why Blue Moon *needs* to be able to market their beer in the way they do, with respect to the qualities of the product being sold rather than the ownership.

In this case, Blue Moon's BMC association would have led this particular consumer to look to another product based on a faulty and incorrect assumption regarding all beer produced by BMC. In reality, the packaging and name are aligned more with the product inside the container than the ownership association.

Though I used the term swill, I also know many people enjoy a lite AAL, and I am not sure the mainstream BMC brands do a bad job with them. So I do not consider the difference between BM and say Bud, to be that one is AAL and one is belgian style. To some consumers it could be quality (which is subjective, so the consumers preference to use ownership is an indicator is legitimate - again, we don't force people to do blind tastings) Or it could be social-political avoidance of big corporate beer.

If the non-beernerd actually cares about the name of the company that owns the beer he produced, then yes, I would expect him to Google it to find out who owns the beer he is considering buying.

Should anyone be able to label their product organic, and leave it to the consumer to google if it actually is?

How about if a chain store were to have a seperate store labeled "independent" and leave it to customers to check if it is?


And this sort of gets back to the plaintiff, Mr. Parent. The fact that he willing drank Blue Moon for multiple years indicates that he enjoyed the product and felt that it was fairly priced. The fact that the only way he discovered that he was being harmed was by doing the very thing he could have done before he ever consumed a single drop of Blue Moon speaks, to me, to the fact that he wasn't really being harmed at all.

Again. Organic. Local. Fair trade. GMO free. Kosher. Hallal.

Consumers have preferences about things other than taste. That pisses some people off, but is not illegitimate.


I guess the bottom line for me is that I feel companies have an obligation to accurately advertise the nature of the product they are selling, but not the ownership or location of the production facility where the product is produced.

Except in this case they not only did not show those things, but used a term that strongly implied (to most folks who are aware of and use the term) an ownership and production facility that were not the case. I get that you don like that some people prefer craft beers (as defined by BA, or as defined by BA but minus BBC and Yuengling, or similar) and I get that Blue Moon does not like that just because they are "craft'. But I do not think that justifies what amounts to active deception to get people to try the beers.

Especially in cases where the true ownership is so easily determined. If people feel strongly about not purchasing products made by certain producers, then it is their prerogative to make the effort to determine who produces their products.

I do not think people are obligated to google to get around a misleading marketing campaign.

Anyone who doesn't feel the need to put forth any effort clearly doesn't care enough for it to matter one way or another.

Small harm, small damages. But not no damages.


As far as label transparency goes, I'd much rather this kind of effort be spent on requiring producers to include bottle/can dating on their product, as that has a much greater impact on me as a consumer than the name of the ownership company.

Except it is very easy to see if a bottle has a date on it or not. Now, if a beer called itself "fresh beer" and then quibbled over the lack of an official definition of "fresh" I could see your point.

 

A judge would not define "craft." The judge would only determine if the term "craft" generally conveys an objective attribute/quality or is just a subjective description. If the judge did decide that the term generally conveys an objective attribute or quality (e.g. "organic"), it would be left for the jury to decide the specific parameters of that attribute or quality and whether or not Blue Moon falls within them. If the judge decided that "craft" is nothing more than a subjective descriptor (e.g. "less filling, tastes great"), the term would be considered puffery and the case dismissed.

 

No. I did not say that they were wrong to avoid BMC. I said that many of the consumers who DO avoid BMC do so based on faulty conclusions. But certainly not all of them--there are many who do so because they don't want to support the business practices in which BMC often engages. That said, consumers have the right to purchase or not purchase products based on whatever standard they want, whether or not it is a misinformed standard. I'm merely pointing out that the consumers who avoid BMC for informed reasons are also likely to already know that MillerCoors owns Blue Moon.

But there are plenty of consumers who avoid BMC without having a clue to what that means. The same way many consumers are afraid of GMOs without understanding what a GMO actually is. This might be shocking to learn, but lots of consumers make uninformed and ignorant purchase decisions. My arguing against the requirement that brewers label their parent ownership company is actually very similar to my stance that companies not be required to label their food as having GMOs. Because the harm done to the companies by the consumer ignorance regarding those labels far outweighs any harm to the consumer that is done by not having those details on the product label.

Not a fair comparison at all, given that 1) terroir is a huge part of wine making--some might argue that is more key than the actual brand itself, and perhaps more to the point 2) you're using an example of a business actually lying about the origins of the wine in question. Saying that a wine that was produced in the Central Coast was produced in Napa Valley is vastly different than failing to disclose that Blue Moon is owned by MillerCoors. The comparison is invalid on its face.

You're arguing that people inherently know that store brands aren't produced by the store? Completely baseless.

No, but Organic, unlike "craft" is a government-certified status. It is legally protected and requires that any company selling organic products meet a stringent set of requirements, as has been pointed out multiple times in this thread. Another completely false comparison.

If a chain store were to have a separate store labeled "independently owned" then this would be, unlike the example we're talking about, a blatant falsehood. Blue Moon is not lying about their product by failing to disclose their ownership.

These examples don't apply to this situation.

Again. Those. Are. Certified. By. Law. Comparing them to the failure to disclose parent ownership of a brewery is completely disingenuous.

I'm not criticizing consumer preferences. That's a strawman.

There is nothing misleading about Blue Moon claiming to create "artfully crafted" beer. That is exactly what they are selling. Their ownership doesn't somehow suddenly make their beer not "artfully crafted" any more than Goose Island's ownership by ABInBev disqualifies BCBS from being "craft beer".

So small as to be functionally zero. And you're forgetting the other side of this--is the damage of omitting Blue Moon's MillerCoors ownership to the customer greater than the damage to Blue Moon of being able to describe their product accurately for what it is? I would argue no.

At the end of the day, Blue Moon is craft beer that is created by MillerCoors. Suing them for calling themselves craft beer is pure insanity and a complete abuse of the legal system.

 

I wonder how many regular, or even occasional, Toronado SD patrons do not know the Blue Moon/MillerCoors link?

 

Kosher and hallal and fair trade are NOT defined by law. Only by private certifying orgs.

And no, Blue Moon is not "craft" as most consumers use that term. Which does not mean well made, or not a lager. It means small, less corporate, etc. That many people extend that to BBC despite it's relative size and public ownership, out of respect to it's role in the actual history of the movement, (or for nefarious lobbying reasons in the case of BA) does not change that. BM does not like that. I do not expect a court to find BM in the wrong, because the law will not see the entire marketing campaign in context. I do think it possible someone will trademark a craft beer certification. We can see what impact that has in the market.

 

"And no, Blue Moon is not "craft" as most consumers use that term." Agreed!

Cheers!

 

Vorsprung said: ↑
Also keep in mind that to the extent the standard is what the reasonable consumer would know or be expected to know about the truth of claims on the label/advertising, that disqualifies pretty much everyone here--you all know too much (since I'm a mere aspirant, maybe I'd qualify ) and therefore know better.

@LambicPentameter "While true, there is nothing false on the Blue Moon label. Failure to offer up the ownership on their label is not a false claim about the product inside."

Exactly right. But the lawsuit alleges wrongs for more than just what's on the label.

 

We have a support group meeting every Monday night at 7:00. Remember, you are amongst friends. We will get through this!!!

 

Evan Parent try harder to be a bigger beer douche. You can't.

 

Not the point. At all. But honestly, I think you know that. There is no law on the books that specifically defines any of those things, but each of those certifying organizations have legal recourse--trademark law--should a company decide to label its products without the required certification.

But the issue here is that there is no private organization that certifies beer as "craft" the way there are for Kosher, Halal, Fair Trade and--within our own beer community--Trappist. There is no official Craft Beer trademark. If there were, then we wouldn't be having this conversation and the protection of the integrity of that certification wouldn't depend on some random beer-drinking crusader suing a company because of the injury he received by being tricked into consuming craft beer that wasn't craft. It would depend on the certifying organization taking the offending brewery to court for infringing on the mark that indicated the specific certification.

Perhaps not. And yet, beers like Blue Moon so resemble craft beer in the physical characteristics of the beer that those same consumers must use a term--crafty--to differentiate it from the brewers who've earned the mythical right to call themselves craft.

The fact that BBC continues to be given an exception sort of proves that the way "most consumers" use the term is meaningless. There is a reason that even the most beer-obsessed, like those of us here on BA, cannot agree on what does or doesn't constitute "craft".

And I'll again cite Goose Island, and by association, BCBS. Is that considered craft beer?

I'm skeptical that anyone will try, to be honest. I'm not sure the financial benefit rises to the cost of creating and defending an Official Craft Beer trademark. And perhaps more of an issue is the fact that you would inevitably be excluding breweries that most consumers would call "craft"--not because they didn't fit the definition, but because a small startup brewery probably isn't looking to spend cash to be able to put "Official Craft Beer" on their label.''

A fair point, and the lack of false claims on the label is probably a big part of why the lawsuit doesn't focus on the label.

Of course, I'm not sure how much recourse the plaintiff is entitled based on the alleged wrongs in the suit.

 

So the plaintiff who claims to be a "home brewer" maintains he drank Blue Moon innocently believing the swill was "artistically crafted" because the label says so. He's like Louis Renault in "Casablanca" when he declares he's "Shocked, shocked, to find that gambling is going on in here!". Somebody get this man a cold filtered, frost brewed Coors!

 

I guess we should be suing Jim Beam and Knob Creek then? I don't think there is any mention of the parent company on the Knob Creek bottle, and I think the bottle even says Knob Creek Distilling.