Appeals court confirms dismissal of Strange Honey Farm false advertising class action

(June 16, 2020)

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Strange Honey Farm LLC by consumers who claim the company unlawfully touts their honey as “100% raw” and “100% honey.”

Plaintiffs Robert Greer, Jeffrey Riemer, Jane Barker, Tucker Goodman, Amber Turner, and Dolores Bowers say the honey that is manufactured and sold by the defendants is also not from Tennessee, as advertised.

The Strange Honey class action lawsuit claims that the product is not raw because the company heats it in order to make it easier to package and bottle.

The defendant destroys enzymes found in raw honey when it heats or cooks its honey, according to the Strange Honey class action lawsuit.

In addition, the plaintiffs maintain that the defendant purchases honey from sources outside of Tennessee, including Vietnam. Also, the Strange Honey lawsuit claims that the company adds syrup to its honey, as syrup is much cheaper than honey.

Strange Honey allegedly purchased honey from Vietnam when it could not meet the demands for consumption with locally grown Tennessee honey. In addition, the plaintiffs state that while it is common to gently heat honey to make it easier to process and package, Strange Honey heats its honey products above 105 degrees Fahrenheit, which has many deleterious effects.

“Heating honey above 105 F destroys many of the beneficial compounds (such as the enzymes) found in raw honey and for which raw honey is prized by consumers,” according to the Strange Honey class action lawsuit.

The plaintiffs go on to say that the defendants cannot collect enough honey from its own hives and other Tennessee hives to keep up with demand. Therefore, the company reportedly purchases honey from various out of state and out of country suppliers.

The Strange Honey class action states that consumers have a reasonable expectation that Strange Honey will not be sourced in Vietnam, will not have syrup added to it, and will not be heated to a point that the honey enzymes break down.

The defendants knew that its honey products were shipped from Vietnam, had syrup added to the honey, and were heated excessively to the point that its honey no longer contained enzymes, antioxidants and other compounds found in raw honey that consumers expect, the plaintiffs maintain.

In addition, Strange Honey reportedly did not take any action to inform purchasers of the defects in its honey or to recall its honey. The plaintiffs claim the defendant has sold thousands of bottles of honey products in Tennessee and across the United States.

“Plaintiffs and the Class have not received the value for which they bargained when they purchased Strange Honey products. There is a difference in value between the Strange Honey products as labeled and advertised and the Strange Honey product as it actually exists,” the Strange Honey class action lawsuit goes on to state.

The plaintiffs complain that the makers of Strange Honey falsely advertised that its 100% raw honey is in fact raw honey when it has been cooked as well as advertised that its honey is 100% Tennessee Sourwood honey, when it has syrup added and is not from Tennessee. The plaintiffs maintain that these actions violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

“Strange Honey engaged in the concealment, deception, suppression, or omission of material facts in violation of the ICFA when, in selling and advertising its 100% Raw Honey, Strange Honey knew that its honey was not raw, was not pure and was not even from Tennessee,” the Strange Honey class action lawsuit maintains.

The plaintiffs note that they would not have purchased the Strange Honey product, nor would they have paid the premium price for the product, had they known about the defects in the honey. They state that Strange Honey’s deception and misrepresentations constitute unfair, deceptive and fraudulent business practices.

The honey customers also maintain that they have been injured because they purchased Strange Honey that is not, in fact, raw.

This is not the first class action lawsuit filed against Strange Honey with the same allegations. A similar lawsuit was filed in December 2019.

Common questions of law and fact in the Strange Honey class action lawsuit include: 1) Whether Strange Honey’s honey is not from Tennessee but rather from outside Tennessee and the country; 2) Whether Strange Honey’s honey contains syrup; 3) Whether Strange Honey’s honey is heated excessively; 4) Whether Strange Honey knew or should have known about the defects; and 5) Whether Strange honey concealed from consumers and failed to disclose the defects to consumers. 

Prospective Class Members include: “All persons and entities who purchased any Strange Honey honey products in Tennessee, Illinois, North Carolina, Florida, Virginia, and Kentucky during the applicable limitations period.”

Did you purchase Strange Honey products thinking the product was “100% raw honey from Tennessee?” Let us know in the comments section below.

The plaintiffs are represented by Al Holifield and Kelly Mann of Holifield Janich & Ferrera PLLC, Kent A. Heitzinger of Kent A. Heitzinger & Associates, and Terrence Buehler of the Law Office of Terrence Buehler.

The Strange Honey class action lawsuit is Robert Greer, et al. v. Strange Honey Farm LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00262, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.