Consumer vs Blue Moon class action lawsuit

The organic example is a bad one, because you're paying for X and getting Y. In that example, you're buying a steak and getting a piece of meat that looks like a steak and made out of dog meat.

With Blue Moon, you're buying a "premium product". What makes it "premium" you may ask? The manufacturer said it is! It's a sales pitch! MillerCoors isn't claiming Blue Moon is made with hand picked yeast from the exotic grains grown on Atlantis, they're selling you a beer made with the "finest ingredients" and make "with care" or some such shtick. Well, you could make the same argument that any beer is made with the "finest ingredients" and "with care". I'm sure the head brewmaster at AB really does care about the taste of every Bud Light. Besides, as has already been mentioned here, there's no legal definition of "artfully crafted". Have you ever seen inside an AB/Miller brewery? It's mind boggling! I would certainly call it an art to be able to brew a beer on a system like that.

 

They're not well informed, but they somehow know that it's an inferior product?

Not arguing your point. I think it's a lose-lose situation for all involved. Yeah, it's devious/deceptive (maybe even spiteful) of big beer to use the term simply to garner more revenue. The customer is also responsible for how they spend their money. You can choose to go solely by the word of the advertiser, or do your own research.

tl;dr: it's an unfortunate situation with no clear-cut, easy answer. Now excuse me while I open the fridge and retrieve a bottle of actual 'craft' beer and quench my thirst...

 

As mentioned above by @mwa423 organic vs non-organic doesn't apply because the USDA has established a specific definition for organic; being organic is independent of the company and branding. Terms like "premium" or "craft" have no universal definition, it's just marketing, so I don't think the question falls between the two at all. If you think luxury car branding doesn't apply then how about examples like Old Navy vs Gap vs Banana Republic clothes? Or Black&Decker vs DeWalt tools (same company)? Even if we just limit examples to the beer world only, what about Sapporo's ownership of Unibrue? InBev and Shock Top? Duvel Moortgat and Boulevard and Ommegang?

People have an opinionated bias against BMC, possibly for good reason, but this is not the way to go about it.

 

I say let them do it and see where it goes, its their money and it pounds on MC a little and make them pound back.
Knock yourself out!!!

 

What's a "premium" price? And who gets to decide when a product is overpriced?
Lawyers fishing for a big payoff, that's all this is.

Now, me on the other hand, I'm suing over "The Neverending Story." Neverending, my ass---it only took me around two hours to watch the whole movie.

 

Now I just hope the case goes the distance on appeal--I would love to have a SCOTUS definition of craft beer! Also, the inevitable articles about the justices' drinking habits would be hilarious.

 

Ugh. Everything about this makes me want to Hulk smash.

 

Which is awesome until this same group of scum sue Dogfish head for making ales which aren't off centered when they are poured into a glass, sue New Belgium for making beer in Colorado (which is decidedly not Belgium), and sue Stone for making a beer which doesn't cause arrogance. Obviously those three have the cash to put up a fight, but if things like this are successful, there will be new "beer label trolls" who will just start essentially suing small brewers, pocketing an easy ten grand (because it'll cost 20 to defend).

 

Nowhere on the label does it say "You Have To Buy This Product."

Is this real or a hoax? There doesn't appear to be any legitimate legal mandate here.

 

Duped into what? There are plenty of crappy craft beers out there being sold at premium prices.

 

I'll send you some Tetrodotoxine B.

 

Among other things, duped into buying something from a multinational conglomerate instead of the small independent company that "Blue Moon Brewing Company" tries so hard to look like. There are lots of people that care about where their money goes more than which beer they drink.

 

Anyone that cares that much about where their money goes should be willing to spend a couple seconds on google. Calling that kind of consumer a part of the general public is a stretch too.

 

Doesn't make what the company is doing any less shady and potentially illegal... Caveat emptor and all that, but there has to be a line somewhere.

Per my first post in the thread, I'm still not saying I agree with the lawsuit, just that I disagree with the practice in the first place and despise the company.

 

Being consumers, we should do our own due diligence for anything we consume, ingest, purchase, etc. Shadow corporations exists in many facets in consumerism; this is a simple one. Cue the Monsanto love...

 

And naïve enough to believe that a charming little independent craft beer company can run ads on TV during every major sporting event, every major prime time show, every major magazine geared towards men, etc.? I hear what you are saying but caveat emptor should still exist.

 

First, the issue is not in the name, nor is it in a premium brand vs. an economy brand, it is in the description of the product." Second, I never argued that the public should win; instead I argued those that said this was "stupid," stating that this is an interesting case, as a ruling may have some effect on the craft beer industry. Finally, the claim is that the beer is purported to be "craft," which, while the term does not currently have a set definition, generally means a beer is brewed in small(er)batches. A ruling in favor of the consumer in this suit might create a legal definition of "craft." Like similar legal issues with "organic," which became legally defined and protected the smaller farmers who, through great expense, held to a certain standard. Similarly, small craft brewers create their product at a higher expense, so a definition may put a premium on "craft beers" that may not allow larger brewers to market their beer as such, which may decrease the value of their items in the market (right?). A ruling in favor of BMBC would likely deem "craft" a marketing term that has no meaning, which is more or less currently the case. That noted, I don't see why, a legal definition of "craft beer" would not help small batch brewers compete. Additionally, I'd be interested in hearing the legal arguments.

 

I don't know much about Blue Moon. Is it brewed in regular MillersCoors breweries? Is there some seperate brewery in Denver where it is made - didn't there used to be? If at regular MillersCoors breweries, at all of them, or just the original Coors brewery in Golden? What is the size of a regular MillersCoors breweiry? How would that compare to the size of the BBC brewery in Pennsylvania, which I imagine is the largest non-contract "true craft" brewery? Who makes the largest batches of 'true craft" beer? Again, I imagine the batches of Sam Adams Boston Lager made in PA? How would that compare to the batch size for Blue Moon made at any given MC brewery?

 

Call me Pragmatic but I don't recall ever seeking or noticing an advertisement trying to trick me into believing Blue Moon is anything other than a wheat beer? Show me this underhanded trickery. Next thing you know, if this insanity isn't stopped, I will be led to believe that Big macs are quality hamburgers!

 

Which AB/MillerCoors (or just the same legal team who filed this suit) will use as a 1,000,000 pound weight for every small craft brewery who screws that up and doesn't make a legally correct "craft". Oh, and who was it who mentioned contract brewers being screwed? Oh, that was me too. How can your beer be "craft" if you don't even brew it yourself!?!?!