306 F. Supp. 3d 441
D.D.C.2018Background
- Plaintiff O'Hara bought Guinness Extra Stout in the U.S. and alleges he relied on packaging and website statements that the beer was brewed at St. James's Gate, Dublin; he claims Extra Stout was actually brewed in New Brunswick, Canada.
- Amended Complaint asserts misrepresentation (common law), unjust enrichment, and multiple Chapter 93A claims (some based on state statutes/regulations), plus declaratory and injunctive relief; seeks class treatment.
- Defendants are Diageo-Guinness, USA, Inc. and Diageo North America, Inc.; they obtained a TTB Certificate of Label Approval (COLA) for the product labels.
- Plaintiff points to prominent front-label text and a November 2015 website statement saying Guinness sold in North America is brewed in Dublin; defendants point to a small back-label disclosure stating “Product of Canada.”
- Court considered COLA public records, denied motion to strike those exhibits, and addressed standing, Rule 9(b), misrepresentation elements, Chapter 93A §3 safe-harbor, and class-allegation challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff plausibly alleged common-law intentional misrepresentation | O'Hara says he saw label/website representations indicating Irish brewing, relied on them, and paid a premium | Defendants argue statements are not misleading and small-print disclosure negates reliance | Denied as to misrepresentation — complaint plausibly alleges reliance and overpayment injury |
| Whether Chapter 93A claims based on labels/packaging survive given TTB approval (safe harbor §3) | Labels and cartons are misleading despite TTB approval; disclaimer is inconspicuous | TTB approved identical labels/COLA shows agency found no misleading origin impression; §3 bars Chapter 93A liability | Dismissed as to claims that rely on bottle/carton labels — COLA entitles labels to §3 safe-harbor |
| Whether Chapter 93A claims based on website statements survive | Website stated all Guinness sold in North America is brewed in Dublin — not approved by TTB and was false | Website is accurate or not actionable; TTB approval extends to packaging only | Denied as to website-based Chapter 93A claims — TTB did not approve website, so §3 does not apply |
| Standing for injunctive and declaratory relief; unjust enrichment; class definition | Seeks injunction/declaration and class relief; requests restitution via unjust enrichment | No threatened future injury so no injunctive standing; unjust enrichment barred if adequate legal remedies; class definition is overbroad/fail-safe | Injunctive relief and declaratory claim dismissed (no Article III standing and duplicative claim); unjust enrichment dismissed (adequate legal remedies); class allegations not struck at pleading stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for pleading)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (apply plausibility and disregard conclusory allegations)
- Shaulis v. Nordstrom, Inc., 865 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2017) (Chapter 93A overpayment injury requires objectively identifiable deficiency)
- Aspinall v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc., 442 Mass. 381 (2004) (deceptive product representations can create Chapter 93A injury where regulatory standard implicated)
- Klairmont v. Gainsboro Rest., Inc., 465 Mass. 165 (2013) (statutory/regulatory violations support Chapter 93A only if conduct is unfair/deceptive in trade or commerce)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001) (administrative action deference and when agency action has force of law)