![]() I guess this begs the question, if you know consumers can’t purchase spirits in a gas station or a grocery store in your state, shouldn’t you be smart enough to know it is not a whisky product. ![]() ![]() The complaint states that “One writer who saw a “huge Fireball display in front of the cash register at a gas station” wondered if “th specific store doing something they’re not supposed to be doing” by selling “cinnamon flavored whiskey!” ![]() Preferring the consumer standard to judge misleading information versus the TTB becomes questionable at best when the facts are examined more closely. The complaint itself relies on essentially the words of the plaintiff indicating why they were misled.īut one must ask, should the legal standard of whether the producer is misleading be the rigorous TTB standard or the subjective and vague standard of a consumer? It passed a stringent test and nothing in its formula or its label was false.Īs the TTB prohibits statements that are misleading, shouldn’t this standard control the legal conclusions in this case. In this case Sazerac’s Fireball Cinnamon was submitted as a malt beverage and it contained natural whisky flavors along with other flavors. Its label’s statement of composition would derive from the formula approval process. During this process it would need to disclose the elements that went into the formula. Previous to obtaining label approval, Sazerac’s Fireball Cinnamon was required to go through formula approval. Anyone who has ever done a TTB label registration has gone through the back and forth with TTB, and knows that they will pinpoint words for revisions. I think the big question in these lawsuits is, should TTB approval provide an affirmative defense for producers?įederal laws require a producer disclose its contents and its labels should not mislead. Interestingly enough, the law suit states that “no individual injury is necessary since the focus in only on Defendant’s practices.” The lawsuit on behalf of a class of consumers is in excess of $5 million. The lawsuit alleges that if the plaintiff knew the true facts, she would not have purchased the products. Her expectation was Fireball Cinnamon was a whisky or contained a non-de minimis amount.īased on this belief, she purchased the Fireball Cinnamon with the expectation that the product contained whisky, which it did not. The cherry picked plaintiff in this suit is Anna Marquez of Chicago, she stated that she prefers distilled spirits to malt-beverage products and when she noticed the Fireball Cinnamon, she did not immediately notice the difference between the two products. What’s alleged is that because when a distilled spirit is used to manufacture flavors, it losses its class and type when blended with other ingredients, putting whisky on the label is misleading consumers to believe that the product contains distilled spirits. The lawsuit indicates that the correct and proper format would be for the statement of composition to read “Natural Whisky Flavors and Other Flavors.” The lawsuit focuses around this statement of composition, as the lawsuit states “Using the words “With Natural Whisky & Other Flavors is a clever turn of phrase because consumers who strain to read this will see how it “Natural Whisky is distinct from Other Flavors.” Fireball Cinnamon’s statement of composition on the label reads “Malt Beverage with Natural Whisky & Other Flavors and Carmel Color. Sazerac makes a popular Fireball Cinnamon Whisky and also makes a Malt Beverage called Fireball Cinnamon. Recently, a New York based attorney filed a class action lawsuit against Sazerac Company for what it alleges is fraudulent and deceptive advertising centered around Sazerac’s Fireball Cinnamon Brand. Woman* (Orginal) – YouTubeĪren’t the markets better equipped than the courts to handle this?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |