Twinings Tea Hit With False Labeling Class Action

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 of North America, Inc. was hit with a class action lawsuit by a Massachusetts man, alleging that it contains misleading statements about antioxidants on the labels of its tea products and they are misbranded.

Plaintiff Anthony Norris filed this false advertising class action lawsuit it in a Massachusetts federal court on Oct. 30, in which he claims he purchased Twinings’ Earl Grey Tea, Mint Green Tea, Green Tea, and others during the Class period that he is proposing in his Twinings class action lawsuit from Oct. 1, 2010 until the date that the Class is notified of the class action lawsuit, if it is certified.

“The Misbranded Tea Products are labeled with antioxidant claims, nutrient content claims, and health claims that are prohibited by law because the products fail to meet the minimum regulatory requirements for making such claims,” the false labeling class action lawsuit explains.

He says that all of the misbranded tea products are made from the Camellia sinensis plant, and they all include what he alleges are “the same prominent illegal label statements.”

In addition, he alleges that they all “violate the same food labeling regulations of Massachusetts.”

Norris includes 13 different Twinings green tea products and over 30 black and white tea products that all allegedly make the same false and misleading claims.

The green tea labels all allegedly include “the back panel label statement ‘A natural source of protective antioxidants and blending using only 100% natural ingredients, Twinings Green Tea provides a great tasting and healthy tea experience.'”

The black tea, white tea as well as the Earl Grey Tea products all say the are “A Natural Source of Antioxidants.”

According to Norris, the mislabeling class action lawsuit “has two facets.”

“The first is the illegal sale of ‘misbranded’ food products,” which he says according to Massachusetts laws prohibits “the manufacture, sale, delivery or offer of delivery of misbranded food, including food whose label is false and misleading in any particular,” the Twinings tea class action lawsuit states.

“The second aspect to this case is the deceptive part,” it explains further.

“Plaintiff alleges that the labels on the misbranded tea products are misleading, deceptive, unfair and fraudulent in the exact same way, i.e., claim to have antioxidant levels and properties that they lack and claim to provide consumers certain nutritional and health benefits despite the fact that these benefits were not recognized by the FDA or the State of Massachusetts or supported by reliable scientific data,” according to the false labeling class action lawsuit.

According to Norris, the “Massachusetts food labeling laws . . . are identical to the food labeling requirements of the federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act.”

Under these statutes, he says that the “nutrient content claims” about the antioxidants present in the teas are “unapproved” statements.

“Defendant’s ‘natural source’ claims about its teas are nutrient content claims require a minimum 10 percent [Daily Value]. Claims that Twinings’ teas are a ‘natural source’ of antioxidants are false and unlawful,” the Twinings tea class action lawsuit says.

“Defendant’s teas do not meet the minimum nutrient level threshold to make such a claim which is 10 percent or more of the [Recommended Daily Intake, or RDI] or the [Daily Reference Value, or DRV] of a nutrient with a recognized RDI per reference amount customarily consumed,” it adds.

And the antioxidant claims allegedly give the impression that the teas meet this minimum threshold, which the teas don’t.

“None of the nutrients in tea has a DV and thus it is unlawful to make nutrient content claims about them,” the false labeling class action lawsuit states.

In addition, if the term antioxidant is used, the specific antioxidant is supposed to be named, there must be an established RDI for the antioxidant, any named antioxidant must have scientific data showing that there are health benefits associated with it, and the claims about the antioxidants need to be in compliance with the law.

Norris is charging Twinings with violating Massachusetts statutes, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, negligence, unjust enrichment, and money had and received.

He is asking for monetary relief, punitive damages, and that Twinings be ordered to stop selling its tea products making the alleged false claims.

The plaintiff is represented by Erica C. Mirabella of Mirabella Law, LLC, by Charles J. LaDuca and Bonnie J. Prober of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, by Don Barrett of Don Barrett, P.A., by Robert A. Clifford of Clifford Law Offices, PC, by Zona Jones of Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP, by Keith M. Fleischman of The Fleischman Law Firm, PLLC, by Dewitt M. Lovelace of Lovelace and Associates, LLC, by Ben F. Pierce Gore of Pratt & Associates, and J. Price Coleman of Coleman Law Firm.

There is no counsel information available for the defendant at this time.

The Twinings Tea False Labeling Class Action Lawsuit is Anthony Norris v. Twinings of North America, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-14048-MLW in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.