Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—N.D. Cal.: California sake mislabeling claims move forward as partial class, (Sep 17, 2025)

By George Basharis, J.D.

Court certifies retail purchasers but finds online exposure too individualized for class treatment.

A federal district court judge has partially certified a California consumer labeling class against Takara Sake USA Inc., concluding that claims over alleged misrepresentations of Japanese origin on “Sho Chiku Bai” sake products may proceed for in-store purchasers but not for online buyers. The ruling reflects the court’s view that exposure to the emblem suggesting Japanese manufacture can be presumed for retail customers, while individual issues predominate for those purchasing through websites where the emblem was not consistently visible (Tunick v. Takara Sake USA Inc., No. 23-cv-00572-TSH (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2025)).

Background. A California consumer sought to pursue claims against Takara Sake, alleging that several “Sho Chiku Bai” branded sake products were deceptively labeled as originating from Japan when they were in fact produced in California. The consumer claimed he purchased a bottle of Nigori Unfiltered Sake in San Diego believing it was made in Japan, pointing to Japanese lettering, a gold emblem stating, “Licensed by TaKaRa Japan, Since 1851,” and the Japanese brand name itself as misleading representations.

The complaint alleged violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), along with breach of express and implied warranty and unjust enrichment. The case progressed through motions to dismiss and was narrowed to a set of specific products and sizes. The consumer then moved for class certification on behalf of California purchasers dating back to February 2019. He also sought certification for injunctive relief.

Certification. The motion was granted in part and denied in part. The court certified a damages class for California retail purchasers of the specified products from February 2019 onward but excluded online purchasers because of individualized issues of exposure. It also certified an injunctive relief class. Certification, the court explained, required satisfaction of four factors: numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy.

Numerosity and commonality. The consumer estimated that more than 2.3 million units of the products were sold in California during the proposed class period. While Takara challenged the accuracy of the data set and UPC codes, the court found that even a fraction of those figures easily established numerosity.

On commonality, the court concluded that each putative member purchased products bearing the same allegedly deceptive label elements. The central question, whether the representations would mislead a reasonable consumer into believing the sake was made in Japan, was capable of classwide resolution.

Typicality and adequacy. Takara challenged the named consumer’s typicality, arguing he could not have purchased the specific product size he claimed at the San Diego store in question. The court found this evidence, based on one store owner’s recollection without records, insufficient to disqualify him from class membership. Any credibility issues could be addressed at trial.

As for adequacy, Takara asserted that the consumer lacked familiarity with details of the litigation and had delegated responsibility entirely to class counsel. The court disagreed, noting the low threshold for adequacy and finding that the consumer demonstrated sufficient understanding of his role, while counsel was presumed adequate.

Predominance and superiority. The court agreed that a class action was the superior mechanism given the low value of individual claims. The central dispute concerned predominance. Takara argued that not all consumers were exposed to the same alleged misrepresentations, particularly those purchasing online where the gold emblem was illegible or omitted. Some physical stores also displayed shelf tags clearly indicating California production.

The court held that for in-store purchasers, reliance could be presumed because the emblem was visible on product labels. But for online purchasers, individualized issues of exposure predominated because it was undisputed that a subset would not have seen the emblem. Accordingly, the class was limited to exclude online purchases.

Consumer law claims. The consumer’s claims under the CLRA, FAL, and UCL required proof that the labeling would likely deceive a reasonable consumer. The court found that questions about whether the “licensed by” emblem created a material misrepresentation predominated over individual issues. Expert survey evidence suggested a measurable deception rate when comparing Takara labels with a control product. While Takara challenged the reliability of the survey and its failure to isolate the emblem alone, the court determined those arguments were more relevant to damages than predominance.

Warranty and unjust enrichment. The breach of express warranty claim rested on the emblem as an affirmation of Japanese origin. Because that representation appeared on each relevant product, the court found the claim amenable to classwide proof for in-store purchasers. The implied warranty and unjust enrichment claims were similarly tied to whether the emblem would reasonably convey Japanese origin.

However, the court emphasized that any damages model would need to align with the liability theory. Takara argued that while the complaint alleged multiple misrepresentations, damages were premised only on the emblem. The court flagged this potential mismatch but left the issue for later proceedings.

Injunctive relief. The consumer also sought injunctive relief, contending that Takara’s labeling practices continued. The court held that certification was appropriate because the claims challenged uniform conduct applicable to the class as a whole. Declaratory or injunctive relief could be crafted on a classwide basis without the need for individual determinations.

The Case is No. 23-cv-00572-TSH.

Judge: Hixson, T.

Attorneys: Bahar Sodaify (Clarkson Law Firm, P.C.) for Colby Tunick. Chassica Soo (Squire Patton Boggs LLP) for Takara Sake USA Inc.

Companies: Takara Sake USA Inc.

Cases: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices CaliforniaNews