Consumer vs Blue Moon class action lawsuit

thank you for the correction and the info.

do you know if Falstaff in the late 1930's was referred to as a brewery, or as beer company that owned breweries?

 

"Beer Company" was not used frequently in the past in the US * - most brewers called their organizations "Brewing Co's" - whether they were running a single brewery or brewing in multiple locations. A minority also called themselves "_____ Brewery(ies), Inc." or similar. Some had official business names that did not include a reference to the business at all - like "P. Ballantine & Sons" or "Anheuser-Busch, Inc.".

And, to further complicate things, Falstaff usually went by "Falstaff Brewing Corp." (as did a few others).

* The most notably (for obvious reasons) was the old Boston Beer Co., founded in 1828 and, after Repeal until they closed in the 1950s, the "America's Oldest Brewery".

Coincidentally ( ) Jim Koch choose the same name for his start-up in 1984. Later, in recent years, the TTB did not allow contract breweries to call themselves "____ Brewing Co." and many choose "____ Beer Co." - but that was not the case when BBC started (for the most obvious example, the brewery-less "Pete's Brewing Co." founded in the 1980s was allowed that terminology, as is the apparently "grandfathered" Pabst Brewing Co.).

Again, for "casual" usage most people understand what is meant when either Anhueser-Busch or MillerCoors (or any other multi-site company) is called a "brewery".

 

I'm super excited about this lawsuit. It's interesting how frivolous something like this can seem, but really the most potent outcome is that this initiates a conversation. Perhaps that conversation has already been in play for many years. Although it seems silly for this man to have purchased a beer many times that he now detests and files suit against, it's not silly to recognize that image is so strongly tied into American culture. He purchased something thinking that it reflected on his image as a "craft beer" consumer. Poser? Yes, but like many of us he mimics the trends that powerfully lead our decision-making. I'm hoping that this will not be settled out of court and away from consumers' awareness. There needs to be information and awareness concerning beer industry norms, so that the real "craft" market can grow and thrive. What's more? Know that Miller is already hiring/securing experts in the field to stand as witnesses in helping define terms associated with "craft beer." In a trial the definition would be based off industry norms and expert testimony regarding the industry.
I'm sure it's all going to disappear

 

Look up Tiswin and Pulque. Those were in NA.

 

Yes, I gather that. The ambiguity of the word "brewery" is not an obstacle to understanding, even less so than the ambiguity of the word "craft".

But it does seem to me that in discussing if "craft" refers to a beer, or to a brewery (IE a company) we have overlooked the possibility that it refers to a brewery (IE a facility) It also seems odd to me that in these discussions when we ask if BBC or SN is still "craft" the discussion is of sheer throughput, and not about the number of facilities owned. ISTM that multiple brewery ownership was a big piece of the nationalization of the beer market post WW2, and that the "regional" breweries that have already made the leap, or are about to make the leap, to having more than one regional sized facility (IE BBC, Yuengling, SN, NB, Lagunitas, and maybe even Oskar Blues) are going to a different class from other regionals (though still very different from AB and MC, I guess)

 

This guy bought it for a year and a half? Because he did not like the taste of it? Lawsuit seems to be splitting hairs. Still seems interesting outcome for clearer labeling. Similar stuff going on with sourced bourbon.

 

Big day for Tito's - if I had to guess, the plaintiff's burden in this case is going to be even higher than the 'hand-made' label.

http://www.bevlaw.com/bevlog/alcohol-beverages-generally/a-great-day-for-makers-a-good-day-for-tito

Seriously, if these guys have handmade on the label and got their case thrown out then I don't see this one going very far...

 

This case has very little legal bearing at all. It will probably get thrown out.

What it does do though is point out to consumers that they are not drinking what they thought they were. Could very well cause a swing in the direction towards craft beer, or it could cause people who like Blue Moon to try more BMC products.

I think Blue Moon is a good gateway beer. I like that it exists, and I don't mind drinking it. I definitely grab it over most other BMC products.

 

Well...actually, yes, it seems some did.

http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/c.../Volume 7/7(2)_Abbott_Use_of_Alcohol_1-13.pdf

 

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.

I guess I misread you. I thought you were say the term "craft beer" is meaningless, and citing disputes about what it means. I am glad we agree it is a term that is used with meaning.

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.

IANAL. It is up the judges to decide the answer. Since there is no opportunity for me to bet on the outcome of the lawsuit, I see no reason to attempt to guess what they will decide - I leave that to others who know the law better.

Is Blue Moon being deceptive? Sure, to some degree I suppose they are.

I am glad we agree.

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),

It is obviously not possible, due to costs and time, for every product to include every piece of info. I would not expect Blue Moon to include reference to its ownership in a 30 second TV spot, as I would not expect SA Boston Lager to refer to BBC in such a spot. It is, however, my impression that most beers include the name of the brewing company on the label (SA thus has BBC on the label, etc) Now that does not mean the full corporate chain - if BMC had MlillerCoors on the label, but not SABMiller, no one could reasonably object. But IIUC they have only Blue Moon on the label, and Blue Moon does not even own a brewery nor (unlike the firms that use contract brewers) does it have any separate ownership.

but whether or not the severity of their deception rises to an unacceptable level--specifically, a legally unacceptable level.

Again, since IANAL, I do not know if it is legally unacceptable. I do think it is a greater level of deception than when someone fails to include every piece of information available - a level of deception that justifies the use of the term crafty by the BA, and by commenters here. I intend to keep using that term myself.

" 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.

I am sure some here consider BCBS "crafty" as apparently the BA does. Some do not. I suppose it could be pure favoritism for a beer they like. It could also be a difference in history. GI WAS a craft brewery, as BM never was, and fully participated in the craft beer community. Or it could be because BCBS (but not say, Urban Ale?) is still brewed in the original GI brewery, a small "craft" brewery (here "brewery" referring to a physical facility, not a company) so that BCBS is craft, but the other GI lines that are brewed in the regular AB breweries, are "crafty" IIUC some Blue Moon at times has been brewed in a separate facility, but at the current time the flagship is not. Or it could be that BCBS gets a pass on a combination of those grounds - a small facility, a very well liked beer, and a history as an independent brewery prior to the purchase - you would have to ask someone who considers BCBS craft but Blue Moon "crafty"

And yet no one is filing a lawsuit against Goose Island for their "deceptive" marketing practices.

That someone is launching a suit against A, and not against B, does not prove the suit against A without merit. Maybe the kinds of folks who consdier themselves deceived by GI have more disdain for bringing the legal system into beer disputes. Maybe they are the sort of people who more aware of ownership than BM drinkers. Maybe there are not enough of them to make it worthwhile for the lawyers. In general if you want more consistent application of consumer rules, I think you need regulation, not tort law, as a method.

 

Lots of people say that.
Until they themselves need one.

 

I don't post here often enough, but it is usually when a legal issue catches my attention involving the beer industry. By way of background, I was born and raised in San Diego and I've been practicing law in California since 1993.

Lawsuits like this are very rarely about protecting the consumer. More often than not, these types of lawsuits are more about lining the pockets of the attorneys and limited competition. In most cases, however, it is about the big guy suing the little guy instead of the other way around. The plaintiff in this lawsuit, who hadn't purchased Blue Moon in nearly 3 years, is most likely working with a local craft brewer to get some publicity or some other profit-related motive not readily apparent.

Last October, the owner of Best Foods filed a lawsuit a company called Hampton Creek for selling a egg-free mayonnaise substitute called Just Mayo. The lawsuit alleged that consumers were being deceived because Just Mayo didn't meet the legal definition of mayonnaise because it wasn't made with eggs. Were consumer truly deceived or harmed? Probably not and they dropped the lawsuit a few months ago.

In this case, you have the Brewing Association with its own definition of they thing a "craft brewer" should be...a definition that they can and have changed for the benefit of members. The Association explicitly declines to define what a craft beer is...leaving that the the consumer.

The Brewing Association is a trade organization with the explicit goal of helping the "craft" brewing industry get to a 20% market share of the beer market in the U.S. There isn't anything wrong with that...I would prefer to spend my money on small or local businesses like a craft brewer rather than give my money to a company like MillerCoors, but they should stop pretending that this lawsuit is somehow about consumer protection.

When the story hit the news in San Diego, one person made the following comment: "I do promotions for MillerCoors via a contractor, and we are always upfront about Blue Moon belonging to the MillerCoors family of products. They also produce Redd's, Smith & Forge, Leinenkugel & many others. They're not branded as M/C so the product can stand on its own merits rather than be judged by its association with a large corporation." If this statement is true, then are the retailers and restaurants that sell Blue Moon also part of a conspiracy to deceive the public? Are they the next targets of lawsuits like this? That seems like a ridiculous notion to me, even in California.

The court is not the proper forum to come up with a definition. That's up to congress or your state legislature.

 

This is an interesting story. I honestly can't believe that this has gotten this far- but at the same time... it can make us think about the medium of beer brewing and how large companies are promoting their brands.

Craft brew? Where was it made? How was it made?

 

Thanks for providing some "insider" insight. I quoted these two passages from your comment because I feel like they are getting at the heart of the matter as I see it:

1) This lawsuit is a waste of time because it is not actually protecting consumers from any reasonable definition of harm/injury. I have no idea how a judge would rule, nor do I care. I don't personally believe that this suit embodies the spirit of the laws we have against false advertising, even if it may hold true to the letter of the law. And if the law agreed with the plaintiff's position, then I would believe that the law was wrong.

And to that end...

2) There is nothing dirty or underhanded about wanting to market a product in a way that emphasizes the attributes of that product while downplaying the name/size of the company at the top of the ownership chain, so long as there is no active deceit going on in said marketing. If Blue Moon were actively claiming to be an independently-owned brewery, then I would likely feel differently. But as it stands, all Blue Moon is doing is combating the very consumer preconceptions (which can be right and wrong) that craft brewers take advantage of when they paint the larger brewers as evil.

And honestly, I don't begrudge either party (BMC, craft) for doing so--it's good marketing to redirect the conversation about a brand or product to focus on the areas in which you have a differential advantage. Blue Moon has a disadvantage (at least with one niche of craft beer consumers) with regards to ownership/size. But they very well may have an advantage when it comes to taste/quality/consistency/etc., so they push that narrative and do their best to avoid the ownership/size issue from even coming up. Conversely, there are certainly small, start-up brewers who generate a lot of sales because of the current interest in independent, locally-sourced beers. It makes sense that they would tout the grassroots nature of their beer versus the big conglomo-brewery that sits on shelves in every supermarket in the country--especially if their beer would lose in a blind taste test next to the offering from the conglomo-brewery.

 

You mean the physical attributes of the product. The ownership IS an attribute, as are the environmental and labor practices, the marketing practices, the practices relative to IP lawsuits and other intra industry relationship practices, etc.

To be honest, I would think the main competition for Blue Moon is not microbreweries, so much as large regional "craft" breweries, especially BBC (the battle for taps between BM and SA must be vicious, I imagine) and New Belgium (which more than BBC, IIUC, makes beers to that style- belgian generally,not necessarily witbier - I do intend to do a taste testing of SA Cold Snap vs BM at some point though, should be interesting).

And I also am not sure blind taste tests are terribly relevant. Few people choose their beers after blind taste tests. While some people may be influenced against BM by knowledge of their ownership, some may be influenced for them by their professional design, promotion, even their rather striking, evocative, yet easily pronounced name. The notion that one particular attribute is all that is keeping consumers from judging purely on taste strikes me is incorrect, and when aimed at the attributes of local, independent, and small (or in the cases of BBC and NB, relatively small) to be an unfair singling out.

 

pass right by it from the way your were going I am assuming that you do not in fact buy blue moon buy choose to pass right by it.

 

Right! Typo. I had to read your post several times before I could figure out WTF you were talking about.

 

HAHA yea I was reading it and had to bust your stones a little bit.

 

Well, yes. I suppose if we want to get bogged down in a semantics argument, that is what I mean. Seems like the meaning was pretty clear from the context I provided, but if you prefer to debate the difference between "attribute" and "physical attribute" instead of focusing on the core argument--that companies should market to their strengths and downplay their weaknesses and not be sued for doing so--we can do that too.

I'm not going to deny that company ownership and, by proxy, that company's business practices are connected to a product and may influence a consumer's decision to purchase that product. But I think it's disingenuous to consider those things attributes of the product itself.

The word "attribute", as a noun, typically means a characteristic that belongs to a person/place/thing. The environmental and labor practices of MillerCoors don't belong to Blue Moon. Blue Moon is a beer. Its attributes are the way it looks, tastes, smells, feels. It isn't filing lawsuits. It isn't writing a marketing plan. A beer can't have philosophies and policies as attributes.

Blue Moon's primary competitors are the larger regional craft breweries like those you named. At least insofar as competitors that represent any kind of a substantial threat to Blue Moon's shelf/tap space. But any company within the industry represents an opportunity for a drinker to drink a product other than theirs.

That doesn't really change the underlying point I was making: that breweries of all sizes should be building a marketing communication plan that emphasizes strengths and minimizes weaknesses in the minds of consumers and not be subject to a lawsuit for doing so.

I don't think consumers *ever* judge purely on taste. This is why blind taste results are so interesting, because it removes all the noise outside of actual taste/smell/look/feel. And no, I realize people aren't going out and doing blind taste tests to decide what beer they want to purchase.

I'm also not suggesting that ownership is the only thing preventing consumers from judging purely on taste. Of course the branding and the name influence consumers. We are subjective, sensory creatures. We rarely make *any* decision based on a single sensory input, which is why most consumers don't decide on a brand via blind taste test.

But none of that is really the point here. The point is that Blue Moon's omission of ownership from their marketing is not underhanded or dirty. It's just a standard part of marketing a product to its strengths and downplaying any potential weaknesses. There is a point at which it is reasonable to expect a consumer to inform themselves about a product beyond the marketing claims about that product, so long as the marketing claims themselves aren't lies.

 

Again, you are privileging its physical attributes. Its social attributes are characteristics that belong to it as well. Some (like if a chicken was humanely raised) are not connected to ownership - but some are.

Part of the reason I am continuing to respond and finding this frustrating is that I think two standards are being conflated leading us to talk past each other. One is "Should A be subject to a lawsuit for this practice" and the other is "Is it fair to call A "crafty" for this practice" I think the standard for the former is necessarily higher than for the latter.

I am willing to concede that MC should win this particular lawsuit (perhaps I was not clear enough above), not that it matters , as IANAL, much less a judge (and I know of no legislation being seriously advanced that would impact suits like this) I am not willing to concede that it is wrong for everyone from the BA, to certain breweries, to individuals here and elsewhere, to judge BM and Shock Top (but not Sam Adams and New Belgium) as crafty. I keep hearing an implication that this is purely a marketing campaign, by brewers of beers of inferior taste to BM, to unfairly win an advantage by linking to BM to MC, when customers should not be judging that way. As someone in sympathy with the larger movement by many to lessen the economic dominance of very large global corporations, I believe it is about more than marketing, and that the reduction of the concern to a marketing campaign already biases the issue.