A trace of deceptiveness in bourbon age labeling

Penrose v. Buffalo Trace Distillery, Inc., 2018 WL 705054,
No. 17CV294 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 5, 2018)
Plaintiffs brought a putative class action claiming that BT misrepresented
that  Old Charter bourbon has been “aged
8 years.” The court mostly refused to dismiss the complaint.
closeup on neck label, before and after

the whole bottle

Old Charter used to be aged for 8 years; as of 2014, it isn’t,
but the bottle still says 8 prominently. 
(See a discussion
at
this link.)  “Eight” or “8” appears
three places on the bottle: on the neck, on its own label on the top of the
body, and in the text portion which reads “gently matured for eight seasons in
century old brick warehouses.” All BT did was remove “aged” and “years” from around
the 8 on the label.  “Seasons” means
years to reasonable consumers, plaintiffs alleged, given BT’s prior eight-year
and ten-year Old Charter products, which claimed to be matured for “eight
seasons” and “ten seasons,” respectively. The number isn’t part of the name; BT’s
own website used “Old Charter,” as did BT’s application for the label with the Alcohol
and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB). 
Published reviews indicate a significant decline in quality, such as:
“for Old Charter 8 the NAS [non age-stated] release was strikingly inferior to
the age-stated product.”  Consumers have
complained, e.g., “what’s said is deceptive, very deceptive in fact…It’s
still hogwash though and deceptive…because what you’re really doing is
selling younger whisky while pretending it’s older.” Nonetheless, BT receives a
price premium for its apparently age-stated bourbon, as shown by premiums paid
for other age-stated versions.
BT argued that no reasonable consumer would infer that Old
Charter is aged for 8 years because of the number 8 alone. “The Court cannot
conclude as a matter of law and at this stage of the litigation that the
packaging is not misleading, particularly in light of Plaintiffs’ allegations
that previously, Old Charter was aged 8 years. Consumers may just as likely
have seen the 8, and based on previous purchase, thought the 8 represented the
years of aging.”  Nor did state law safe
harbor provisions apply despite the TTB’s approval of the Old Charter label; “deceptive
conduct, viewed as a whole, is often broader than the otherwise regulated
conduct; therefore, in those circumstances, the doctrine does not apply.”
Claims based on the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act failed
because bourbon’s age is a description of the product and in no way promises
any level of performance for any period of time, as required under the MMWA. Nor
was there a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability pled, because
even un-aged bourbon is merchantable: it’s are “fit for the ordinary purposes
for which such goods are used.”
Fraud claims, however, were pled with the requisite
particularity (I must admit to always being a bit amused by the “where” in
these cases—on the label!)  Plaintiffs
also stated a claim for unjust enrichment, in the alternative to their properly
pleaded breach of contract/express warranty claims.

It was too early to decide any class action issues, but the
court did dismiss claims for injunctive relief, since the named plaintiffs wouldn’t
be fooled again even if they expressed willingness to buy properly labeled Old
Charter bourbon.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2GTLS6j

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s