Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—S.D. Cal.: Claims that MillerCoors misrepresented Blue Moon beer as “craft beer” fail, (Oct 26, 2015)

By Michael Menzhuber, J.D., LL.M.

A consumer’s claims that MillerCoors LLC engaged in deceptive and misleading practices by misrepresenting one of its beer products, in violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), were dismissed by the federal district court in San Diego. In dismissing the complaint, the court determined that the safe harbor doctrine barred the claims and a reasonable consumer would not have been deceived by MillerCoor’s representations regarding the product (Parent v. MillerCoors LLC, October 21, 2015, Curiel, G.).

Background. Evan Parent alleged that MillerCoors misrepresented its Blue Moon beer, which he regularly purchased at a premium price for a year and half, as “craft beer”. According to Parent, MillerCoors went to great lengths to disassociate Blue Moon from the MillerCoors by: (1) not disclosing MillerCoors’ ownership of Blue Moon on the bottle or the outer packaging; and (2) not including any reference to MillerCoors on the Blue Moon Brewing Company (BMBC) website. Parent also alleged that MillerCoors’ mislead consumers into thinking the Blue Moon was “craft beer” by using the phrase “Artfully Crafted” in the labeling and advertising; charging a premium price, in line with the price of other “craft beers;” and the placement, in retail stores, of Blue Moon among other “craft beers.”

Parent filled a class action complaint against Miller Coors alleging violations of the CLRA, FAL, and UCL. MillerCoors moved to dismiss the complaint.

Safe Harbor Doctrine. The court noted that: (1) 27 C.F.R § 25,142(a) and 27 C.F.R § 25,143(a) specifically permit a beer bottle and outer packing to show by label or otherwise the “name or trade name” of the brewer; (2) Cal. Code Regs. Title 4 §130(a) states that the true name of manufacturer, bottler, or packager shall be deemed to include a fictitious business name for which a Fictitious Business Name Statement has been filed; and (3) MillerCoors properly registered BMBC as a trade name in California’s Fictitious Business Name registry. Consequently, the court determined that Parent’s UCL, CLRA, and FAL claims were barred by the safe-harbor exception to California’s consumer protection laws because the conduct challenged by Parent, listing BMBC on the Blue Moon bottle and packaging as the manufacturer, was the same conduct authorized by law.

Reasonable Consumer. Claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA that representations are misleading are governed by the “reasonable consumer” test, the court explained. Parent argued, to show that MillerCoors had gone to great lengths to disassociate Blue Moon from the MillerCoors name, that there was not a single reference to MillerCoors on the BMBC website. The court, however, found that, because Blue Moon was prominently displayed on the MillerCoors website, it was not probable that a significant portion of the general consuming public, acting reasonably under the circumstances, could be misled by Blue Moon’s Internet presence.

Parent also argued that a reasonable consumer could likely be deceived by MillerCoors’ false identification of Blue Moon as a “craft beer” on the MillerCoors website. The court, however, was not able to conclude that a reasonable consumer, viewing Blue Moon’s identification as a “craft beer” on the MillerCoor’s website, could be misled in believing that Blue Moon was an “independently brewed, hand-crafted beer” not owned by MillerCoors.

The court also rejected the argument that MillerCoor’s use of the BCBM trade name in Blue Moon’s labeling and packaging contributed to a deceptive atmosphere or context within which MillerCoors’ use of the phrase “Artfully Crafted” could be evaluated. The premium price charged for Blue Moon and the placement in retail stores of Blue Moon among other “craft beer” was not deceptive or misleading because: (1) Parent pleaded no other features of Blue Moon’s advertising; (2) there were no allegations that MillerCoors had any control over the placement of Blue Moon in the retail stores; and (3) there was no authority for the proposition that the price of product constituted a representation or statement of that product, the court concluded.

The case is No. 3:15-cv-1204-GPC-WVG.

Attorneys: Robert Craig Clark (Clark & Treglio) for Evan Parent. Julie L. Hussey (Perkins Coie, LLP) for MillerCoors LLC.

Companies: MillerCoors LLC

Cases: Advertising CaliforniaNews