NEW YORK (Legal Newsline) – Class action lawyers who sued Anheuser-Busch because Lime-A-Ritas don’t actually contain tequila have lost three of their four claims.
New York federal judge Kenneth Karas on Aug. 9 dismissed allegations of breach of express warranty, fraud and unjust enrichment, but is allowing lawyers at Faruqi & Faruqi to try again in a second amendment complaint.
Karas stopped short of dismissing the lawsuit entirely, allowing claims under New York’s General Business Law to proceed. He rejected the company’s argument that it included on the packaging that Lime-A-Ritas and other products are flavored malt beverages.
Karas cited a case involving Cheez-Its and their claims to be made with eight grams of whole grain per serving in large print despite smaller print indicating otherwise.
“Here, likewise, the Court cannot conclude that the disclosures on the bottom of Defendant’s packaging renders Plaintiffs’ ‘allegations of deception implausible’ as a matter of law,” Karas wrote.
“Although Defendant cites several cases that distinguish Mantikas, it misconceives the nature of the distinction those courts were drawing. In the cases cited by Defendant, each court found that the alleged misrepresentation did not make an ingredient claim in the first place (distinguishing Mantikas in this respect), and therefore was not misleading as a matter of law; thus, in contrast to Mantikas, these courts had no need even to consider whether a clarifying disclosure defeated the plaintiffs’ deception claim.”
The company’s Sangria Spritz, Rose Spritz and Mojito Fizz Sparkling Cocktail were also a part of the lawsuit, which alleges plaintiffs Tanya Cooper and Joseph Rose bought these items but were stunned to find out they were merely flavored like the drinks they were named after.
It blames the company for not including a disclaimer that the Lime-A-Ritas do not include tequila.
Karas absolved the company of fraud, so far, ruling the complaint fails to establish a strong inference of fraudulent intent.
“Although Plaintiffs invoke an allegedly deceptive advertisement in which the speaker appears in front of a wine cellar, the Court is not persuaded this advertisement constitutes the type of strong circumstantial evidence necessary to support an inference of fraudulent intent,” he wrote.
“The outcome might be different, for example, if Plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that Defendant was aware of consumers’ preferences for beverages with distilled liquor or wine, and then deliberately marketed the products as such in order to capitalize on that market.”