Quantcast

Molson Coors, fighting Vizzy lawsuit: No one thinks booze with vitamin C is the same as eating fruit

LEGAL NEWSLINE

Sunday, December 22, 2024

Molson Coors, fighting Vizzy lawsuit: No one thinks booze with vitamin C is the same as eating fruit

Federal Court
Vizzy

SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) – Molson Coors says it has broken no laws in declaring its Vizzy hard seltzers contain “antioxidant Vitamin C from acerola superfruit.”

Lawyers for the company on Nov. 12 filed a motion to dismiss a proposed class action in San Francisco federal court, arguing it has complied with applicable federal nutrition label laws and state consumer protection statutes.

The lawsuit claims the addition of vitamin C to the products provides only 20% of the recommended daily intake of vitamin C per 12-ounce can and that alcohol consumption interferes with nutrient absorption.

“Plaintiffs have not alleged that any statement is false, and no reasonable consumer would be misled by VIZZY’s label that properly reports the amount of Vitamin C, clearly states ‘contains alcohol,’ and also includes the federally mandated Surgeon General’s warning,” the motion says.

“No reasonable consumer thinks drinking a hard seltzer is healthy or is the same as eating a piece of fruit.

“Rather, Plaintiffs’ theory derives from a legally flawed theory that the FDA expressly prohibits any alcoholic beverage regulated by the FDA from calling out vitamin content. They are wrong, and accordingly, their theory of consumer deception collapses as well.”

The lawsuit also takes issue with the term “superfruit,” arguing little evidence supports the idea that superfruits are nutrient-dense. Plaintiff Jennifer Marek alleges she paid more money than she would have paid for another or a similar alcoholic beverage product that was not unlawfully fortified and labeled with misleading nutrient content claims.

“Plaintiffs’ (first amended complaint) is a thinly veiled, backdoor attempt to impose Plaintiffs’ legally incorrect views of what federal nutrition labeling laws supposedly require of hard seltzer labeling, where the federal law itself provides them with no such remedy,” the motion says.

“And, ironically, Plaintiffs’ FAC seeks to misconstrue state consumer protection laws to remove truthful information, which is expressly permitted by federal law, from the product label, thereby providing consumers with less truthful information, not more.”

More News