Jim Beam Shot With Class Action Over ‘Handcrafted’ Claims

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.

Last week, a class action lawsuit was filed against Jim Beam Brands Co., the maker of Jim Beam Bourbon, alleging that the company’s production process for the popular spirit is highly mechanized but Jim Beam falsely advertises it as “handcrafted.”

Lead plaintiff Scott Welk filed the Jim Beam class action lawsuit in California federal court. He alleges that he purchased Jim Beam’s white label bourbon at a premium price because of indications made by Jim Beam that the liquor was handmade.

“‘Handcrafted’ and ‘handmade’ are terms that consumers have long associated with higher quality manufacturing and high-end products,” Welk argues in the Jim Beam class action lawsuit. “This association and public perception is evident in the marketplace where manufacturers charge a premium for ‘handcrafted’ or ‘handmade’ goods. In the case of a 1.75L bottle of bourbon, similar to the ones Defendants manufacture and sell, the price per bottle can be as low as $13.49.4 Whereas [Jim Beam’s] purportedly ‘Handcrafted’ 1.75L milliliter bottle of bourbon is listed at $33.99.”

According to the handmade bourbon class action lawsuit, photos and videos on the Jim Beam website show that the drink is produced using a mechanized process “resembling a modern day assembly line and involving little to no human supervision, assistance or involvement.”

Jim Beam’s website says that the distilling process requires skilled craftspeople. However, the class action lawsuit alleges that machines grind and break up grains, mix them with yeast and water, transfer the mash to a fermenting location and eventually bottle the bourbon. Welk alleges that the grains are transported by cranes and tubes into mash tubs, where they are mixed by motors and the only human involvement in the barrel filling is a worker who releases a lever.

“There are no skilled craftsmen involved in this manufacturing process,” Welk argues in the Jim Beam class action lawsuit. He claims that Jim Beam’s marketing of the bourbon as handcrafted amounts to a violation of California state business law, false advertising, and negligent and intentional misrepresentation. The class action lawsuit seeks an injunction against Jim Beam from indicating its product is “handmade” as well as compelling the company to disclose the mechanized production process.

A similar class action lawsuit was filed against Maker’s Mark Distillery Inc. in December of last year. Maker’s Mark has since filed a motion to dismiss that action, arguing that because it included videos and pictures of the production process, it did not mislead consumers. Maker’s Mark also invoked the safe harbor doctrine, arguing that its label was pre-approved by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

Welk is represented by Abbas Kazerounian and Mona Amini of Kazerouni Law Group APC and by Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart.

The Jim Beam Mislabeling Class Action Lawsuit is Scott Welk v. Beam Suntory Import Co., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00328, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

UPDATE: The Jim Beam class action lawsuit was dismissed on Aug. 21, 2015.