Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—S.D. Ill.: Coffee purchasers obtain class certification in deceptive advertising suit, (Nov 4, 2015)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

A class of Grove Square Coffee (GSC) purchasers has been certified in an action alleging that the coffee’s manufacturer misrepresented that GSC was premium, ground coffee when it was predominantly instant coffee. The federal district court in East St. Louis, Illinois, concluded that the consumers met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) (Suchanek v. Sturm Foods, Inc., November 3, 2015, Rosenstengel, N.).

Consumers filed multiple class action lawsuits against GSC manufacturer Sturm Foods, Inc. and its parent company Treehouse Foods, Inc., alleging deceptive advertising under the consumer protection laws of eight states. The district court previously refused to certify the class and granted summary judgment against all eight individual plaintiffs. The decision was reversed by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, however, which found that that the question of whether GSC packaging was likely to mislead a reasonable consumer was common to the claims of the class. On remand, the consumers moved, once again, for class certification.

Rule 23(a). The court first determined that the requirements of Rule 23(a) were met because: (1) tens of thousands of GSC units were sold during the class period, satisfying numerosity; (2) the question whether the GSC packaging was likely to mislead a reasonable consumer was common to the claims of every class member; (3) typicality was satisfied because all class members were exposed to GSC’s marketing and packaging; and (4) the named plaintiffs and proposed class counsel were adequate representatives.

Rule 23(b)(3). With regard to Rule 23(b)(3), the court found that the plaintiffs met their burden of showing a proposed class-wide damages model consistent with their theory of liability: a full refund theory that could be offset by the actual value of GSC if the coffee is found to have any worth. In addition, the question of whether the GSC packaging was likely to deceive a reasonable consumer was deemed appropriate for class-wide resolution. The court reasoned that the question was identical across every class member, since: (1) all of the consumer protection statutes at issue required proof that Sturm’s statement was likely to mislead a reasonable consumer and (2) all claims would rise or fall on the resolution of that question. Common issues therefore predominated, and proceeding as a class action was the superior form of adjudication for this action, the court concluded.

Finding also that the ascertainability requirement was met and the class definition was not overbroad, the court certified the following class: All persons or consumers who, during the Class Period of September 2010 up through the date the case is certified and notice is disseminated, purchased Defendants’ Grove Square Coffee (“GSC”) products in Alabama, California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee.

The case number is 11-CV-565-NJR-PMF.

Attorneys: Randy L. Gori (Gori Julian and Associates PC) for Linda Suchanek. Aaron J. Weinzierl (Foley & Lardner) for Sturm Foods, Inc. and Treehouse Foods, Inc.

Companies: Sturm Foods, Inc.; Treehouse Foods, Inc.

Cases: Advertising ConsumerProtection StateUnfairTradePractices IllinoisNews