![]() ![]() According to the plaintiffs, only a small disclaimer on the bottom of the box indicates the beverages are “Malt Beverage With Natural Flavors and Caramel Color.” Straw-Ber-Ritas on a table at an event in Nashville, Tennessee on September 29, 2016. The legal filing also said that product packaging fails to note that the beverages don’t have liquor in them, not appearing on the front, sides and top. The plaintiffs also alleged in the suit that the use of the terms “Margarita,” “Mojito,” “Sangria” and “Rosé” “mislead a reasonable consumer into believing that the respective Products contain either tequila, rum, or wine,” adding that the these products’ respective packaging contained “a combination of misleading images and language, such as ‘sparkling classic cocktails’ with images of cocktail and wine glasses.” The plaintiffs said in the suit that they would not have purchased these items had they known they did not contain liquor or wine, or “would have paid significantly less for them.” The plaintiffs said they “never saw a disclaimer regarding the purchased products’ true contents,” and both allegedly relied on the what they say product implied it was according to their understanding, which caused them to “falsely believe that the Margarita Products contained tequila and the Wine Products contained wine.” ![]() The case also claimed that at several different points over the course of 2019 through 2020, the lead plaintiffs, Megan Browning and Alan Kesselring, were allegedly falsely enticed into purchasing various Anheuser-Busch Ritas products thinking they contained items they did not. BC563150, Superior Court of California in the County of Los Angeles).įor more information about other class-action lawsuits filed against Anheuser-Busch LLC and ’s coverage of the company, click here.Essentially, this case set out to prove that the name “Lime-A-Rita,” for instance, is misleading because a traditional margarita contains tequila and other spirits, and since Ritas products only contain beer with fruit flavors, the plaintiffs said it was a case of false advertising. November 2014: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Anheuser-Busch for allegedly falsely advertising several flavors of Bud Light Lime-A-Rita malt beverages – including the Lime-A-Rita, Raz-Ber-Rita, Straw-Ber-Rita, Mang-O-Rita, and Apple-Ahhh-Rita – as “light” and low-calorie beverages when they actually contain “significantly more calories and carbohydrates than any other Anheuser-Busch alcoholic beverage.” ( Cruz et al v. concluding that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege that the labels at issue could deceive a reasonable consumer.ĭecember 2014: This action was transferred to federal court. June 2015: A federal judge dismissed this action When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled. July 2015: The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the June 2015 dismissal order. The appellate court found that reasonable consumers would not be deceived into thinking that Bud Light Lime-a-Rita is a low-calorie, low-carbohydrate beverage because the label makes clear that the beverage is not a “normal beer.” Later in March, plaintiffs filed a petition for en banc review (i.e., a rehearing by all of the judges of the Ninth Circuit, rather than the selected three-judge panel.) March 2017: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision to dismiss the lawsuit. April 2017: Plaintiffs’ petition for en banc review was denied. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |