Consumer vs Blue Moon class action lawsuit

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.

The point is that the absence of a legal standard does not rule out that a firm can be deceptive. Let me take the case of kosher, which I know better. In fact none of the certifying organizations "owns" the word kosher. The Orthodox Union owns the letter U inside an O, the Chicago Rabbinical Council, owns the letters CRC inside a triangle, the Vaad HaKashrut of Balitimore owns the letter K inside a 5 poiinted star. But if you just put the word kosher on your product (or a fortiori, the letter K by itself) with the active attempt to deceive, the trademarks are moot. This has happened (because yes, there are consumers who place some premium on kosher status, and yet who are so removed from the kosher community as to be ignorant of the certification system). IIUC some states attempted to address this via regulation, which got caught up in establishment clause issues.


My point, is not whether kosher (or craft beer) should be enforced by the state. It is that within what is legal, it is possible to engage in deceptive business practices - by taking advantage of the grey areas, the quibbles, and the limits on enforcement, to deliberately mislead consumers, whom the seller knows hold a particular definition of a term on the label.

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.

Yes, that is clear. I guess I am less interested in the success of this suit (which seems very unlikely, and which our discussion will have zero impact on) than in discussing the business ethics of this approach by Blue Moon (and implicitly, in the legitimacy of calling out Blue Moon as "crafty")



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.

Some combination of its physical characteristics and the current state of their palettes. I doubt I could tell a $500 (?) first growth Medoc from a $40 pretty good Sonoma Cabernet - but I still think labeling the latter as the former would be a harm to me. I mean how am I ever going to learn to appreciate the Medoc if I am drinking something else thinking it is a 1st growth Medoc?

And yes, a product is more than its physical characteristics. Like it or not.

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".

One more time. The fact that a term has grey areas and disputes, does not mean it is not a meaningful term (shall I point again to kosher? Where the different certifying orgs have different standards, and on some issues very different approaches - side note, do not serve cheese certified by Tablet K to your Orthodox friends, at least not without checking with them first)

As to the specific question of BBC - I personally think craft is a movement with a history, and BBC deserves inclusion on that basis. But I am sure there are folks who would exclude it. I doubt though there are many who would exclude BBC, but include BM.

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

And again there the fact that there are grey areas does not mean a term lacks meaning. I am sure there are people who consider GI craft, but not BM. Are there reallly people who consider BM craft, but not GI?



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.''

I don't know. I have been in hole in the wall places that had kashrut certification. If you don't serve meat, it does not add that much to cost, I gather. And I would expect that certifying that you are under 6 million BBLs and not owned by BMC, is a much easier cheaper process than certifying that all your ingredients are kosher, you bought your ovens brand new, etc, etc.

Heck, if it became an issue, BBC and a few other larger craft brewers could probably afford to defray the cost of certifying nanobreweries.

 

The comparison to kosher is silly. Craft beer is a marketing term created purely for marketing purposes, its value across even the general population of beer drinkers is questionable and even among craft beer drinkers it's not really a huge sticking point for most people. Kosher is a religious standard whose market value is a result of it being a religious standard; it has value because people literally need to know if something is kosher or not.

 

@lordofthemark Great discussions, but no matter how passionate the discussion there is no universally recognized definition of "craft" beer. Therefore there's no logical basis to claims that MillerCoors is deceiving customers by incorrectly applying a term with no universal definition. Period. All other arguments are just handwaving.


On a related note, if the Brewers Association wanted to make their craft brewer definition a little less ambiguous they could could create a logo and allow their craft beer members to display it the beer they produce; similar to trademarked logos for USDA organic, and several Jewish/Kosher organizations. However, that would probably upset some BA members, which includes MillerCoors, Anheuser-Busch, Goose Island...

 

The folks who really "need" to know about kashrut are familiar with the certification system, often exquisitely so. The people who are deceived by an untrademarked letter "k" on a laberl, are the folks for whom it matters, but not that much.


As for craft beer being a marketing term, I am not sure of that. As I have pointed out in other threads, I find it a useful term to use. I also am not sure it was first used by the Brewers Association, or even by a particular brewery. Does anyone have citations on its first usage? My sense is that it's usage is an offshoot of artisanal and handmade, for a product in which the creators hands do not actually contact the product.

 

I hate anything BMC as the next guy, and would love to see Blue Moon go up in flames because it's a truly garbage beer with shady advertising. With that said, I don't think there's a law against capitalism, so I really can't say I'm against MC in this case.

 

@lordofthemark

At this point we're going in circles here. I completely understand that a term having a grey area doesn't mean that it completely lacks meaning, and I've never said anything to the contrary.

But this thread, and subsequent debate, is about the merit of filing suit against Blue Moon for their attempt to include themselves within a movement for which the meaning involves--as we both seem to agree--a grey area. The grey area doesn't render the term meaningless, but it does make suing Blue Moon for attempting to include themselves under the umbrella of that grey area much more difficult.

Is Blue Moon being deceptive? Sure, to some degree I suppose they are. But to me, the question isn't about whether or not they are being deceptive (since most marketing is "deceptive" on some level if we're including marketing that fails to include every piece of information available about a product), but whether or not the severity of their deception rises to an unacceptable level--specifically, a legally unacceptable level.

I cite Goose Island and BCBS, not to prove that the term "craft" is meaningless, but to note that Blue Moon is not unique in using so-called deception to market their product. That Goose Island is literally no different that Blue Moon in how they market their product: they sell beer that meets the physical characteristics of "craft" beer, but due to ownership and production, their beer no longer falls under the "craft" umbrella. This information is not contained on their website or labels, and any consumer who wants to know the truth about ownership would have to put effort into a Google search, just like Blue Moon. And yet no one is filing a lawsuit against Goose Island for their "deceptive" marketing practices.

 

Honestly I don't see what the big deal is I mean the words "Artfully crafted" is so vague it could mean anything I mean technically a popsicle house held together with elders glue could be "Artfully Crafted" or a paper mâché volcano could be "Artfully crafted" I mean I don't know about you guys but I wouldn't call brewing an "art" anyway it's really more of a science which would take probably a least a decades worth of knowledge to fully understand

 

Do you realize that this is more or less the exact same argument that has been made by many on this thread about craft beer consumers and Blue Moon's ownership?

People for whom a brewery's ownership matters to whether or not they will purchase a product are familiar with the fact that Blue Moon isn't an independent brewery. People who are deceived by an "artfully crafted" tagline on the bottle are the folks for whom it doesn't matter that much.

I would also argue that "craft" is certainly a marketing term. Whether or not it was coined by an ad agency or a business doesn't particularly matter. It is a term that is used to describe a given product class and signal to consumers how that particular product differentiates from other, competing products.

 

Here's an article about the use of the word "craft" in distilling: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/20...ign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150504 .

 

Do you realize that this is more or less the exact same argument that has been made by many on this thread about craft beer consumers and Blue Moon's ownership?

Yes. And in both instances I think the people for whom it matters a little, are deceived. The damage in each case is small, but the numbers so deceived are not. And in both cases, I think making a personal judgement of the marketing practives involved, is legitimate.

I would also argue that "craft" is certainly a marketing term. Whether or not it was coined by an ad agency or a business doesn't particularly matter. It is a term that is used to describe a given product class and signal to consumers how that particular product differentiates from other, competing products.

Well sure. What I was taking issue with is the claim that it is only a marketing term.

 

The origin of the term “craft brewery” was discussed in this thread: http://www.beeradvocate.com/community/threads/when-was-micro-brew-renamed-craft-beer.5835/

You will read that @jesskidden opines that the beer author Vince Cottone should be credited for the popularization of this term (circa 1986).

Cheers!

 

I'm not delving way into this thread, but, was there a request for a jury on this case?

 

This raises a question for me. Again, I havent read through the last few pages. But, is there a potential difference between a Craft Brewer and a Craft Beer? Put another way, is it possible for someone who is not a craft brewer to make a craft beer?

My from the hip answer is yes. But, I also think that the answer to that depends on whether you feel the term "Craft Beer" relates to the person making it, or to the end product itself. Or, perhaps they're inextricably intertwined.

 

From the interview: Parent said he cares about it because he is a beer aficionado and home brewer.
That line changes everything. If this is true, he likely knew what he was drinking, in which case I don't think he has much of an argument to stand on...

 

There are no unambiguous/universally accepted answers to your questions since there is no unambiguous/universally accepted definitions on what constitutes a craft brewery or craft beer.

“But, is there a potential difference between a Craft Brewer and a Craft Beer?” The Brewers Association (BA) ‘skirts’ this issue by defining what they think constitutes a craft brewery but purposefully do not define what is a craft beer. This can go both ways:

· A craft brewery could brew a beer which would not generally be considered a craft beer. A potential example here is Yuengling which is now considered a craft brewery by the BA but most people would not consider the flagship beer of Yuengling Traditional Lager as being a craft beer.

· Goose Island is not considered a craft brewery by BA since they are owned by AB but most folks would consider BCBS to be a craft beer

“But, I also think that the answer to that depends on whether you feel the term "Craft Beer" relates to the person making it, or to the end product itself.” Yes, that can indeed be a conundrum. Some BeerAdvocates construe the term “craft” (including with the term of “craft beer”) with being produced by a smaller type brewery (i.e., a non-BMC brewery). For the case of a beer like BCBS, those folks could rationalize that the beer is produced by a smaller type brewery (Goose Island facility in Chicago) and despite the AB ownership is a “craft beer”.

Cheers!

 

Maybe those who know the business or the discourse better can clear it up, but it seems to me there is also ambiguity in the word "brewery" Is that a company, or a production facility? If BBC owns former macro facilities in Ohio and Pa, and a tiny place in Jamaica Plain can we say BBC is a beer company that owns two macrobreweries and one craft brewery? People do use the term brewery for a company, even though single companies have owned multiple breweries in the US since the late 10th century when AB did their first brewery outside St Louis, IIUC. That is relevant, because I think craft (which yes, has many overlapping definitions) tends to connote small batches, made under more human supervision in a small facility vs more industrial approaches. But Goose Island beer made at the GI facility in Chicago, by that approach is different than GI beer made in regular AB industrial breweries. And yes, that definition has implications for contract brewing.

 

"Maybe those who know the business or the discourse better can clear it up, but it seems to me there is also ambiguity in the word "brewery" Is that a company, or a production facility?"

Maybe @jesskidden has some perspective here?

Cheers!

 

Too late to edit - Of course I meant the 19th century (the native peoples did not have fermentation, at least not in North America, now did they?)

 

Yeah, "brewery" is just shorthand for a "brewing company" that has multiple facilities. So, Anheuser Busch is a brewing company that operates 12 large breweries (not counting their new subsidiaries' breweries, of course - Goose Island, 10 Barrel, Elysian, etc.).

Not much different that common usage that might call either "Anheuser Busch" (the company) or "Carlos Britos" (ABInBev CEO) a "brewer".

If a "small" brewery is under 2m bbl (US TTB definition) or 6m bbl (B.A.'s "craft brewer" definition), there's no way that the former Schoenling brewery in Cincinnati that BBC bought from the merged Hudepohl-Schoenling could be considered "macro" - it had a annual capacity of around 600,000 bbl. when purchased (BBC has since expanded it).

I'm guessing that "10th century" is a typo and was meant to be "19th", but while there were numerous breweries that were owned by the same company in the pre-Pro era - including a period when so-called "English Investors" would buy up multiple breweries in a city/region and combine them under the same corporate umbrella, it was not until the post-Repeal era in the US that the same beer was brewed in multiple regional breweries.

Falstaff is usually credited with be the first when they purchased the Krug brewery in Omaha and the National brewery in New Orleans in the mid-1930s. But Pabst merged with the malt syrup company Premier before Repeal, and was brewing at their Peoria Heights, IL facility and then bought Hoffman in Newark 1946 and brewed Blue Ribbon there. Schlitz bought the Brooklyn brewery of Geo. Ehret in '49 for Schlitz beer production.

AB did not brew Budweiser or any other AB brand outside St. Louis until the built and opened their new brewery in Newark, NJ in 1951.

 

For the case of Anheuser Busch, the expansion into multiple breweries was a 20th Century phenomenon:

St. Louis, Missouri (opened 1852)

Newark, New Jersey (opened 1951)

Los Angeles, California (opened 1954)

Houston, Texas (opened 1966)

Columbus, Ohio (opened 1968)

Jacksonville, Florida (opened 1969)

Merrimack, New Hampshire (opened 1970)

Williamsburg, Virginia (opened 1972)

Fairfield, California (opened 1976)

Baldwinsville, New York (opened 1983)

Fort Collins, Colorado (opened 1988)

Cartersville, Georgia (opened 1993)

Cheers!