Coffee lawsuits brewing

Two cases, suggesting a newly discovered litigation vein.

Ashton v. J.M. Smucker Co., No. EDCV 20-992 JGB (SHKx), 2020
WL 8575140 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2020)

Plaintiffs alleged that representations on the front of
Folgers ground coffee cans, including “MAKES UP TO 240 6 FL OZ CUPS,” “MAKES UP
TO 210 6 FL OZ CUPS,” and “MAKES UP TO 360 6 FL OZ CUPS,” were false in
violation of NY and California laws.

On the back of all the products,
Defendants instruct consumers that they should use one tablespoon of ground
coffee to make one serving/cup of coffee. Based on standard measurements,
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants grossly overstate the number of servings the
Products can make. For example, Defendants represent that the 30.5 oz canister
“MAKES UP TO 240 6 FLZ OZ.” However, to make 240 servings, 240 tablespoons (or
1200 grams) of ground coffee are needed. However, the 30.5 oz canister only has
865 grams of ground coffee, 72% of the amount of ground coffee needed to make
up the represented amount of cups…. On average, the 39 different varieties of
Products at issue contain enough ground coffee to make only 68.25% of the
servings promised on the packaging.

Did plaintiffs suffer cognizable injury? They alleged that
they “would have paid significantly less for the Products had [they] known that
the Products did not contain enough ground coffee to make the represented
number of cups of coffee.” This was sufficiently concrete and particularized
injury. They need not allege that they actually attempted to make the
represented servings, because they alleged uniform underfilling. And they
alleged standing for injunctive relief because “they would like to continue
purchasing the Folgers ground coffee products because they like the taste.”

Deception was also plausible. “While it is certainly
possible that consumers would understand that the Products could make up to the
stated servings by using less ground coffee than recommended per cup, it is
also possible that consumers would expect to be able to make the represented
servings following the recommended brewing instructions.”

Breach of warranty claims also survived, because the “makes
up to” representations were plausibly affirmations or promises about the number
of cups that could be made.

Defendants sought dismissal of nationwide class allegations,
arguing that applying California’s laws to a nationwide class would violate their
due process rights. This was better resolved at the certification stage, since
defendants would have to show material differences in the treatment of this
specific claim; precedent does not hold that “nationwide classes are, as a
matter of law, uncertifiable under California’s consumer protection laws.”

v. Kroger Co., 2021 WL 1573719,  No. 2:20-cv-06754-SB-RAO
(C.D. Cal. Apr. 2, 2021)

private label coffee says on the front that it “makes about” a specified number
of cups of coffee (e.g., “Makes About 225 Cups”). Instructions on the back of
the packaging direct consumers “to use the following measurements: ‘[o]ne
rounded tablespoon of coffee for each 6 fl oz. of cold water’ or ‘1/2 cup of
coffee for every 10 servings.’ ” Lorentzen alleged that, if you did that, you
get “a 47-54% deficiency in the total number of servings per canister when
following the single serving instructions.” She brought the usual California
statutory claims.

most other California courts’ reasoning, the court didn’t allow her to
represent a class of purchasers of other sizes/flavors of the coffee, even if
it had the same allegedly misleading representations. “Substantial similarity,”
the court thought, was “inconsistent with the basic concept of standing,” even
though by definition every consumer bought a different bag of coffee with a
different iteration of the allegedly false claim on it; I don’t see why this
reasoning doesn’t make the class action form unconstitutional (and perhaps that
is coming next). She couldn’t bring claims based on false advertising on which
she did not rely. She couldn’t suffer injury based on products she didn’t buy.
(Again, including other bags of the same product in the same size, which she also
didn’t buy.)

the size/flavor she did buy, she plausibly pled deception and injury.

with the ‘qualifying language’ about a consumer’s preference for his or her ‘desired
strength’ of coffee, the Court cannot say as a matter of law that a reasonable
consumer would expect the yield to be cut in half when brewing coffee as
instructed.” Likewise, a reasonable consumer might not rely on the weight
disclosed on the front label to figure out the truth. This wasn’t an “up to”
claim about wi-fi speeds, which can be expected to vary, but a representation
about a specific number of cups from a product with a defined amount in a
package, and it wasn’t a case of missing by a few but by nearly half.

from Blogger

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: Logo

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s