Twinings Tea Wins Dismissal of Antioxidant Class Action Lawsuit

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Twinings has 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.

U.S. District Court Judge Ronald M. Whyte granted Twinings’ motion for summary judgment, ruling that plaintiff Nancy Lanovaz lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief.

The court previously denied her request for damages but had left open her motion for an injunction against the tea maker to remove claims that the products are “natural source of antioxidants” from its product labels and website.

Twinings argued that it had discontinued its use of the statements at issue on its tea product labels on a rolling basis starting in 2013 and ending in April 2014.

The company removed the antioxidant references from its website during the last year and claims it has no intention of using such statements in the future, making Lanovaz’s claims moot.

In the 10-page ruling issued last Friday, Judge Whyte sided with Twinings ruling that Lanovaz lacked standing because she “made no showing that Twinings will resume its use of the offending label statements or that she intends to purchase Twinings’ tea again in the future.”

“Because plaintiff cites no evidence that defendant is likely to use the statements again, the court finds no material dispute of fact as to the threat of future injury,” Judge Whyte said.

Lanovaz filed the class action lawsuit against Twinings in May 2012, alleging Twinings’ green, black, and white tea products are “misbranded” under federal and California law.

Specifically, Lanovaz takes issue with the statements “Natural Source of Antioxidants” and “A natural source of protective antioxidants and blended only using 100% natural ingredients, Twinings Green Tea provides a great tasting and healthy tea experience” found on the Twinings’s green tea labels and the statement “Tea is a Natural Source of Antioxidants” found on Twinings’ black and white tea labels.

She claims these statements are false and misleading. The lawsuit alleges that Lanovaz and other potential Class Members relied on Twinings’ nutrient content claims when deciding to purchase the tea products and they would not have purchased the products knowing the tea did not satisfy minimum threshold requirements for antioxidants.

After three motions to dismiss, Lanovaz filed a third amended complaint but Judge Whyte partially granted Twinings’ motion for summary judgment with respect to the plaintiff’s causes of action based on “health claims.”

However, the Court denied Twinings’ motion for summary judgment on the issues of materiality, standing, and whether the tea labels contained “nutrient content claims.”

In April 2014, the Court denied class certification for a damages Class, but gave the green light for a certified Class for injunctive relief.

Twinings opposed the certification, motioning for summary judgment on all claims, arguing that Lanovaz lacks sufficient evidence to establish materiality, deception, standing for injunctive relief, and availability of injunctive relief.

Judge Whyte commented that while he is not persuaded that Lanovaz lacks standing because she knows the facts about the antioxidant content in the tea, he did conclude that the plaintiff lacks standing because she has made no showing that Twinings will resume its use of the offending label statements or that she intends to purchase Twinings’ tea again in the future.

“There is no likelihood of substantial and immediate irreparable injury,” Judge Whyte wrote in his order for dismissal.

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 Antioxidant Class Action Lawsuit is 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.