Consumer vs Blue Moon class action lawsuit

Your link doesn't work.

 

Ridiculous. I hope the consumer ends up having to pay for MC's legal costs. I'm going to sue Lagunitas because "sucks" is good.

 

Looks like that page has been taken offline. Here's a link that appears to address the same story: http://www.winelawonreserve.com/201...h-class-action-suit-for-craft-blue-moon-beer/

EDIT: and here http://www.bevlaw.com/bevlog/malt-beverage/a-flood-of-lawsuits-and-too-much-blue-moon-beer

The gist of it from the original article: MillerCoors advertises Blue Moon beer as a craft beer - and charges a premium for it - despite being as mass-produced as its other products, a class action claims in state court.

From bevlaw.com: 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 not ordinarily command a premium price, or purchased a product they otherwise would not have purchased, absent Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions. (emphasis mine). Seriously?

 

Can't say I support doing the whole legal route but the gist behind it really does piss me off.

 

Interesting...and stupid, mostly stupid. Craft v. Crafty goes to court, I guess.

This suit sounds similar to lawsuits against Tito's Vodka and other distillers who tout their beverages as being "hand made" and what not.

I wonder if the plaintiffs will try to use the BA's definition of craft to support their claims....

Or if the plaintiffs will try to use the Beer Advocate scores of Blue Moon as evidence that the beer does not justify the premium price they (knowingly) paid....

 

I see your point and agree. Perhaps a better course would simply be to not purchase their products anymore?

 

This is far and away the dumbest thing I have seen.

 

Class action suit on behalf of the consumer my ass. The only people who get anything in these cases are the lawyers

 

This is the definition of a frivolous lawsuit. I don't care for Blue Moon, but seriously?

 

This is even worse than BART transportation going after 50/50 Brewing.

What a lame way to live your life.

 

This. Not necessarily a fan of the lawsuit, but the practice MillerCoors has of deliberately subverting the association Blue Moon has with its parent company disgusts me.

It's not enough to say "well then just don't buy that" among a group of the most well-informed consumers in the market for said product. The general public who are not well-informed are who are being duped here.

 

Isn't there actually a good point to be made about unfair and deceptive practices, though? Doesn't Coors' harm the consumer by charging a premium based on a deception? And doesn't their ability to command higher prices through deception hurt the market share of craft brewers? It's an interesting question, at very least. Hardly stupid, I'd say.

 

Would this open up the door to sue major "mass production"companies over everything described as "Artisan"? Like Domino's describing their new "artisan" pizzas? They charge more for those pies than a normal one. Is it all because the consumers weren't' explicitly told that MillerCoors owned Blue Moon? Is there some obscure law that all craft beer advertisements should include pedigree? I'd be interested in seeing how many that claim they were duped made a second purchase of Blue Moon, which would suggest that they liked it to begin with. If that's the case, than it wouldn't matter of McDonalds made it, you liked it enough to pay a premium to have it again. So you wanted it to not say Coors? That's it? You're willing to buy a $27 steak at Outback (shudder......) but the revelation that Coors makes your beer is too much to handle? This litigious society of ours will seriously jeopardize the existence of all we enjoy as consumers if these frivolous lawsuits are allowed to continue.

*Edit - Had to add this as well. To me, this just doesn't pass the smell test as an actual "issue". Nobody died from drinking Blue Moon, Nobody is claiming that they kept buying a bad product in hopes that it would magically become better because it was "craft". and finally - nobody HAS TO BUY beer in the first place. And as an extension, nobody HAS to pay a premium for beer. They all chose to pay the "premium". It's not like they were deceiving people with a medical condition into buying snake oil, it's beer. Either you like it or you don't. Consumers shouldn't be suing a company because the purchase didn't "say something about their savvy" that they thought it would. Attention plaintiffs - it's beer. That's it. Get some more info on what craft beer is and just get over it. If we as a nation are so freaking soft that we have to sue because we thought we were drinking something more "crafty" than it truly is, than how we haven't been invaded by a small third world country, with ease, is beyond me,.

 

Are you kidding? Do you sue Cadillac because it's just nicer Chevy? Do you sue Lexus because their "premium product" is a Toyota with leather seats?

The real danger here is to contract brewers. If somehow every Blue Moon must say it was made by MillerCoors, then every contract brewer has legal liability to say who the beer is *actually* produced by causing a level of confusion to the average beer drinker that may cause heads explode in the beer aisle.

 

I think it's stupid because...
1) There's no universally accepted definition of what "craft beer" is. We've had hundreds of discussions about that on these boards and there's never a consensus.
2) There are hundreds of industries outside of brewing that do the exact same thing and they aren't getting sued. Should we sue Gap/Old Navy/Banana Republic; Toyota/Scion/Lexus; Honda/Acura; Black&Decker/DeWalt? Or in the "craft" beer world would we ever consider sueing Port Brewing and Lost Abbey (same owners) for being deceptive? Heck no!

 

From the second link:
" 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 "

It will be fun to read about lawyers argue about the definition of "craft". I wonder if they will reach any more of a consensus than the BA forums.

 

Be an advised consumer, I don't care if bud says it was craft. As with anything, do your research. Next thing you know people will be sueing brewers because their "craft" beer sucks, now wouldn't that be fun

 

What's interesting is that the question seems to fall between "Do you sue Lexus because their "premium product" is a Toyota with leather seats?" and Do you sue a company that claims its products are organic, but are not technically so?

 

Please see my response to mwa...