MillerCoors Wants Blue Moon False Ad Class Action Tossed

Last week, MillerCoors filed a motion to dismiss a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that the company falsely advertised their Blue Moon beer as “craft-brewed.” According to the motion, MillerCoors asserts that “no reasonable consumer could be misled by any of MillerCoors’ advertisements.”

Plaintiff Evan Parent originally filed the lawsuit in April and alleged that MillerCoors deceptively misled consumers into believing that Blue Moon was a craft beer based on the beer’s advertising, product placement among other craft beers, and the premium price tag the beer held.

Parent maintained that MillerCoors engaged in misleading and deceptive advertising as well as unfair competition when the company chose to omit the MillerCoors name from the Blue Moon advertising, and violated California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

In August, MillerCoors filed its first motion to dismiss the false advertising class action lawsuit. At the time, MillerCoors argued that the term “craft beer” and “crafted” could not be deceptive advertising terms because craft beer lacks a legal definition.

The Blue Moon class action lawsuit was dismissed in October by Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who determined that the use of the name Blue Moon Brewing Company was protected under safe harbor doctrine and met federal regulations. However, Judge Curiel allowed Parent to amend his complaint.

In the motion to dismiss the amended Blue Moon class action lawsuit, MillerCoors company complains that Parent is trying to repackage his initial claims in his amended complaint.

MillerCoors also says that the plaintiff is trying to hold the company liable for statements that retailers, restaurants and other third parties make about the beer. The motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit says that Parent is accusing MillerCoors of directing those who sell Blue Moon to make statements about the beer and place it among the craft beer section of retail outlets, and MillerCoors says these allegations are baseless.

“Plaintiff imagines, without any support — just as before — that MillerCoors enters into agreements that dictate where Blue Moon is placed and how nonretail venues may refer to the product simply because its trademark protected logo is used by others,” MillerCoors argues. “But by law, MillerCoors cannot enter into agreements with retailers or be vicariously liable for statements of others based on mere trademark use.”

In the plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint, Parent referred to YouTube videos on Blue Moon’s channel that showed images of beer being made in small tanks housed in a small building with signs that read “Blue Moon Brewing Company.” MillerCoors argued the videos tell a story of the beer that was eventually rebranded as Blue Moon.

MillerCoors summarized, “No reasonable consumer would believe that Blue Moon — a beer plaintiff notes is served at national food chains and, according to the [Blue Moon Brewing Company] website, is available at countless locations nationally — is brewed in small batches by an independent local, microbrewer.”

Parent is represented by James M. Treglio, R. Craig Clark, Dawn M. Berry and Veronika Snoblova of Clark & Treglio.

The Blue Moon Craft Beer Class Action Lawsuit is Evan Parent, et al. v. MillerCoors LLC, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01204, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

UPDATE: On June 16, 2016, for the second and presumably last time, a federal court has dismissed a consumer class action lawsuit over whether Blue Moon beer can truly be described as “craft beer.”