385 F. Supp. 3d 730
W.D. Wis.2019Background
- Anheuser‑Busch ran a nationwide Super Bowl and follow‑on campaign comparing Bud Light to Miller Lite and Coors Light, emphasizing Bud Light uses rice and asserting MillerCoors beers are "made with" or "brewed with" corn syrup and advertising "Bud Light, Brewed with no Corn Syrup" and billboards saying "100% less corn syrup."
- MillerCoors sued under the Lanham Act (false advertising) and sought a preliminary injunction to stop specified campaign language.
- Brewing experts for MillerCoors asserted corn syrup is used during fermentation but no corn syrup remains in the finished Miller Lite/Coors Light; Anheuser‑Busch uses rice for Bud Light.
- MillerCoors submitted a consumer survey and social‑media/consumer communications evidence showing many consumers believed corn syrup was present in the final product after viewing the ads.
- The court evaluated whether (1) certain statements were literally false or misleading, (2) a substantial segment of consumers were likely deceived, (3) MillerCoors would suffer irreparable harm, and (4) the balance of harms/public interest favored injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether statements saying Miller Lite/Coors Light are "made with" or "brewed with" corn syrup are misleading | These literal statements are misleading in context because consumers infer corn syrup is in the finished beer | Statements are literally true and do not imply corn syrup remains in the finished product; mere scale of campaign not enough | Not likely to succeed on showing these standalone "made with/brewed with/uses" statements are misleading (court declined to enjoin those alone) |
| Whether claims "100% less corn syrup" or "no corn syrup" for Bud Light, and ads listing corn syrup for Miller/Coors without process context, are misleading | Such statements reasonably imply Miller/Coors final products contain corn syrup and are therefore misleading | Statements are literally accurate comparisons about brewing input; truthful comparative claims are protected | Court found plaintiff likely to succeed on these statements and enjoined their use in specified media |
| Whether Anheuser‑Busch's intent to exploit consumer confusion creates a presumption of deception | MillerCoors argued intent supports presumption of consumer deception | Anheuser‑Busch argued Seventh Circuit has not adopted such a presumption; intent alone insufficient | Court found evidence of intent relevant but declined to rely on a presumption to justify injunction for the "made with" ads; intent supported broader context for other ads |
| Whether MillerCoors showed irreparable harm and public interest favors injunction | Survey, social media, and consumer communications show reputational injury and likely lost sales; Lanham Act injuries can be irreparable | Defendant pointed to stable sales/market share and argued limited consumer harm | Court held plaintiff showed irreparable harm tied to the misleading statements it likely will prevail on; public interest in truthful advertising favors injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Arla Foods, Inc., 893 F.3d 375 (7th Cir. 2018) (framework for literal‑false vs. literally‑true‑but‑misleading Lanham Act claims and evidentiary approach at preliminary injunction stage)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1992) (truthful or suggestive ingredient descriptions can imply falsehoods about a product's composition)
- Mead Johnson & Co. v. Abbott Labs., 209 F.3d 1032 (7th Cir. 2000) (clarifies limits on labeling a statement "misleading" based solely on consumer survey evidence)
- Hot Wax, Inc. v. Turtle Wax, Inc., 191 F.3d 813 (7th Cir. 1999) (contextual analysis of advertising statements for deception)
- Schering‑Plough Healthcare Prods., Inc. v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 586 F.3d 500 (7th Cir. 2009) (examples of "bald‑faced" literal falsity and deception analysis)
- Promatek Indus., Ltd. v. Equitrac Corp., 300 F.3d 808 (7th Cir. 2002) (Lanham Act injuries, such as harm to goodwill, are often irreparable)