Nelson v. MillerCoors, LLC
246 F. Supp. 3d 666
| E.D.N.Y | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Leif Nelson sued MillerCoors alleging Foster’s packaging and marketing misled consumers into believing the beer sold in the U.S. was imported from Australia, when it was brewed domestically in Fort Worth, TX.
- Claims asserted: violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (ICFA), New York GBL §§ 349 and 350, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, breach of express warranty (multi-state), and unjust enrichment (alternative).
- Plaintiff pleaded reliance on label imagery (kangaroo, Southern Cross), slogan (“Foster’s — Australian for Beer”), website text, and packaging; he alleged economic injury from overpaying for a purportedly imported product.
- MillerCoors moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the labels and website explicitly disclose the U.S. brewing location and thus cannot mislead a reasonable consumer; it also challenged ICFA standing and duplicative/unavailable tort claims.
- The court took judicial notice of TTB COLA documents and some public materials, declined to judicially notice a later-conducted survey, and assessed whether the alleged statements could deceive a reasonable consumer as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Foster’s packaging and website are materially misleading under NY GBL §§ 349, 350 | Packaging imagery and marketing imply Australian origin; disclaimers are insufficient to cure front‑of‑label impression | Labels and website contain explicit, prominent disclosures that the beer is brewed/packaged in the U.S.; a reasonable consumer would not be misled | Dismissed — no reasonable consumer would be misled given clear disclosures |
| Whether plaintiff (a New York resident) has standing to sue under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act | ICFA claim asserted on behalf of nationwide class; injuries flowed from MillerCoors’ Illinois headquarters decisions | ICFA applies only where transaction’s circumstances occur primarily and substantially in Illinois; plaintiff viewed and purchased in New York | Dismissed — plaintiff lacks ICFA standing because the transaction was tied to New York, not Illinois |
| Whether negligent misrepresentation and fraud were pleaded adequately | Plaintiff relied on representations of Australian origin and suffered economic loss | No actionable misrepresentation because labels/web disclosures accurately state brewing location; fraud elements not met | Dismissed — misrepresentation element not satisfied |
| Whether express warranty and unjust enrichment claims survive | Packaging and branding created express promises and conferred benefit to defendant; unjust enrichment pleaded in the alternative | Labels contain explicit production disclosures; unjust enrichment duplicates other failed claims | Dismissed — express warranty defeated by specific disclosures; unjust enrichment duplicative |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (stands for plausibility pleading standard)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible claim)
- Fink v. Time Warner Cable, 714 F.3d 739 (2d Cir. 2013) (court may decide as a matter of law that an advertisement would not mislead a reasonable consumer)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (disclaimer may not cure a clear front‑of‑package misrepresentation where ingredient panel is insufficient)
- Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, 85 N.Y.2d 20 (N.Y. 1995) (reasonable consumer standard for deceptive acts under New York law)
- Hydro Investors, Inc. v. Trafalgar Power Inc., 227 F.3d 8 (2d Cir.) (elements for negligent misrepresentation)