Cooper v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, 553 F.Supp.3d 83

Background

Anheuser-Busch markets "Ritas" canned beverages labeled as "SPARKLING MARGARITA," "SPARKLING SANGRIA/ROSÉ COCKTAIL," and "MOJITO FIZZ," with front imagery evoking cocktails; the cans are in fact flavored malt beverages that contain no tequila, wine, or rum. Disclosures stating they are "flavored malt beverages" appear in small font on the bottom panel.
Plaintiffs Cooper and Rose bought 12‑packs in New York, alleged they expected genuine cocktails (tequila/rum/wine), and claim they would not have purchased or would have paid less had they known the truth.
Plaintiffs filed a putative class action asserting violations of N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349 and 350 (consumer protection/false advertising), breach of express warranty, common‑law fraud, and unjust enrichment.
Defendant moved to dismiss. The Court applied Twombly/Iqbal pleading standards and New York reasonable‑consumer GBL analysis.
Ruling: the Court denied dismissal of the GBL §§ 349–350 claims (labels plausibly misleading to reasonable consumers); dismissed express warranty and fraud claims for pleading defects (warranty: failure to plead pre‑suit notice; fraud: insufficient allegations of scienter), and dismissed unjust enrichment as duplicative; dismissal of the latter three claims was without prejudice and leave to amend was granted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the front labels materially misleading under N.Y. GBL §§ 349–350?	Labels and imagery reasonably conveyed to consumers that the beverages were actual cocktails containing tequila, rum, or wine; the small bottom‑panel disclosure is insufficient to cure deception.	References to cocktail names are mere flavor designators and federal regulations permit use of cocktail names; ingredient lists/disclosures negate any deception.	Denied dismissal: plausible that a significant portion of reasonable consumers could be misled; whether misleading is fact question for discovery.
Did plaintiffs adequately plead injury/price‑premium under GBL?	Plaintiffs allege they paid more or would not have purchased but for the misrepresentation.	Plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege a basis for a price premium.	Plaintiffs adequately pleaded injury at the motion‑to‑dismiss stage (price‑premium theory plausible).
Is there a viable breach of express warranty claim?	Label statements created warranties that formed the basis of the bargain and were breached.	Warranty claim fails as a matter of law or for lack of pre‑suit notice.	Dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead specific pre‑suit notice facts; leave to amend granted.
Does the fraud claim meet Rule 9(b) and scienter requirements?	Labeling constituted material misrepresentations; plaintiffs relied and suffered damages.	Plaintiffs failed to plead strong inference of scienter (only alleged profit motive).	Fraud claim dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead facts giving rise to a strong inference of fraudulent intent.
Is unjust enrichment available?	Equitable relief appropriate because defendant was enriched at plaintiffs’ expense.	Claim duplicates other causes of action and is therefore improper.	Dismissed as duplicative of statutory/tort claims.

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must contain factual enhancement beyond conclusions)
Orlander v. Staples, Inc., 802 F.3d 289 (2d Cir. 2015) (elements for §§ 349–350: consumer‑oriented conduct, materially misleading, injury)
Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., 910 F.3d 633 (2d Cir. 2018) (front‑label representations are judged in context; small‑print disclosures may not cure misleading front claims)
Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonable consumers should not be required to look beyond misleading front‑of‑package statements to side‑panel disclosures)
Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739 (2d Cir. 2013) (disclaimer may defeat deception only in certain circumstances)
Jessani v. Monini N. Am., Inc., [citation="744 F. App'x 18"] (2d Cir.) (summary order) (context‑specific finding that "truffle flavored" on low‑priced oil was not plausibly read to mean real truffle inclusion)
Chen v. Dunkin' Brands, Inc., 954 F.3d 492 (2d Cir. 2020) (common‑sense dismissal where reasonable consumer would not be misled by implausible interpretation)
Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos., 8 F. Supp. 3d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (express warranty and deceptive‑labeling claims survive where label ambiguity exists)
NetJets Aviation, Inc. v. LHC Commc'ns, LLC, 537 F.3d 168 (2d Cir. 2008) (duplicative‑claim test: arise from same facts and do not allege distinct damages)
Corsello v. Verizon N.Y., Inc., 967 N.E.2d 1177 (N.Y. 2012) (unjust enrichment is a narrow equitable remedy, not a catchall)