Tito’s Handmade Vodka Targeted By 4 Class Action Lawsuits

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.

UPDATE 5/4/15: At least eight Tito’s Vodka class action lawsuits have now been filed across the country, challenging the use of the term “Handmade” on the product label. The manufacturer is opposing a motion to transfer these cases to a California MDL.

A fourth class action was filed in New Jersey against the company that makes Tito’s Handmade Vodka alleging that the spirit is misleadingly marketed.

Lead plaintiffs Marc McBrearty and Paul Cantilina alleged in their class action lawsuit that the name, “Tito’s Handmade Vodka,” misleads consumers when the vodka is actually “mass produced from commercially manufactured ‘Neutral Grain Spirit’ by modern, technologically advanced machines and equipment in a large industrial facility.”

According to the Tito’s Handmade Vodka class action lawsuit, Fifth Generation Inc., Bert Beveridge II and Mockingbrd Distillery Group once had a legitimate claim to use “handmade” in its name, stemming from a time when the vodka was made in a 16-gallon pot still. “However, it is now manufactured by machines in a highly mechanized process on a 26 acre operation that produced approximately 850,000 cases in 2012,” the plaintiffs allege.

“[T]he defendants’ Vodka is simply not ‘handmade’ as the word is defined in numerous dictionary sources,” the deceptive marketing class action lawsuit alleges. “The defendants’ Vodka is: (1) made from commercially manufactured ‘neutral grain spirit’ that is trucked and pumped into Tito’s industrial facility; (2) distilled in a large industrial complex with modem, technologically advanced machines and stills, many of which are automated; and (3) produced and bottled in extremely large quantities.”

The plaintiffs claim that by labeling the vodka as “Handmade,” the companies are “improperly and deceitfully by manufacturing, distributing, marketing and selling Tito’s Handmade Vodka with false ‘Handmade’ labels and with related misrepresentations claiming that the product was ‘Handmade’ when the product is in fact commercially manufactured in a large factory facility.”

Additionally, the plaintiffs allege that “the defendants’ Tito’s Handmade Vodka was made, manufactured and/or produced in massive buildings containing ten floor-to-ceiling stills and bottling 500 cases an hour.” They also argue that “automated machinery is used, which is the complete opposite of the product being handmade.”

“Likewise,” the plaintiffs state in their deceptive marketing class action lawsuit, “the automated commercial factory process is the complete opposite of the product being ‘Crafted in an Old Fashioned Pot Still,’ as the Defendants represent to consumers.”

The plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers made an estimated $85 million in revenue from sales of Tito’s Handmade Vodka since 2012.

The Tito’s Handmade Vodka class action lawsuit seeks damages and restitution from the manufacturer’s “ill-gotten gains.” The proposed Class includes New Jersey residents who purchased Tito’s Handmade Vodka based on the allegedly false marketing. The plaintiffs allege that the manufacturer’s marketing of the vodka violated the Consumer Fraud Act while engaging in unjust enrichment and intentional misrepresentation.

This deceptive marketing class action lawsuit joins several other lawsuits that have been filed against Tito’s Handmade Vodka alleging similar claims, including cases in California, Florida and Illinois. The class action lawsuit in California is seeking to include a nationwide Class of consumers.

McBrearty and Cantilina are represented by Barry Gainey with Gainey & McKenna.

The California Tito’s Handmade Vodka Deceptive Marketing Class Action Lawsuit is Hofmann v. Fifth Dimension Inc., Case No. 37-2014-00031150-CU-NP-CTL, in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego. Case information for the New Jersey class action lawsuit was not available at this time.