Twinings Class Action Defendant Makes Third Attempt to Dismiss

In a third attempt to toss a consumer fraud class action lawsuit over claims of false advertising and labeling, Twinings has filed another motion to dismiss.

The tea company, in a motion for summary judgment, argued that the plaintiffs failed to show evidence that a “reasonable consumer” was likely to be deceived by the statement “natural source of antioxidants.”

Twinings also claimed that the plaintiff didn’t provide evidence or standing to support the request for injunctive relief, making the request moot.

“Over two years have passed since Plaintiff moved for class certification, and discovery has closed. Plaintiff has no evidence to support her claims,” Twinings said. “She offers only her own inconsistent testimony, inapposite FDA warning letters, as well as a generic, fill-in-the-blank declaration [from an expert witness] which includes no study.”

Additionally, Twinings challenged the plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief, stating that the company removed the phrase “natural source of antioxidants” and other similar statements from its website and packaging.

“[Plaintiff] lacks standing to pursue injunctive relief, since the labels have been changed, she doesn’t intend to buy Twinings tea in the future,” the company argued.

Plaintiff Nancy Lanovaz filed the class action against Twinings North America in 2012 on behalf of a Class of California consumers who purchased the teas since May 2008.

Lanovaz accuses the tea company of falsely representing the health benefits of more than 50 different blends of its teas and violating California’s Unfair Competition Law, California’s False Advertising Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, by describing its green, black and white tea blends as a ‘Natural Source of Antioxidants.’

Furthermore, Lanovaz claims she paid a premium price for Twining’s green and black tea and would not have purchased it had she known the company allegedly misbranded its tea as a “natural source of protective antioxidants” as printed on the product’s label.

Two years ago, U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte certified the Class as injunctive-only, ruling that the Class could only seek injunctive or declaratory relief (to determine whether Twinings must change its label) and not monetary damages.

Twinings filed another motion to dismiss in 2014, but Judge Whyte denied the bid for a second time on the grounds that Lanovaz may be able to provide evidence of injury once Twinings’ financial records and pricing information was reviewed by the plaintiff.

The company also pointed out that a district court dismissed a similar proposed class action against Twinings last year on preemptive grounds. Twinings asserted that the judge was presented with the exact same labels and claims.

Lanovaz is represented by Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates, J. Price Coleman of Coleman Law Firm and Brian Herrington of Barrett Law Group PA.

The Twinings Tea Class Action Lawsuit is Nancy Lanovaz, et al. v. Twinings North America Inc., Case No. 5:12-cv-02646, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: On May 9, 2016, Twinings filed another motion to dismiss the claims.

UPDATE 2: On Sept. 6, 2016, Twinings won a bid for dismissal in a consumer fraud class action lawsuit claiming the company falsely represented the health benefits of more than 50 different blends of its teas.