White Labs lawsuit

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Hmm. I think there would be more exploding bottles around the world if their yeasts would be regularly contaminated that way. But you never know. I don't know why they say they checked their own bottles, should have checked the yeast slurry from the provider?
 
The article I read says the brewery tested everything and the contamination was in the yeast. Did they test their trub, their hoses, their fermentation, their starter? Unless they tested a new sealed container of yeast from White Labs, good luck! That contamination could have been anywhere! On anything! One mistake, one missed spot while cleaning and sanitizing and that's it. The best Left Hand can hope for is is a Judge and/or Jury that doesn't understand. My guess is that's what they're betting on.
 
ESBrewer said:
I don't know why they say they checked their own bottles, should have checked the yeast slurry from the provider?
Click to expand...

May have not been possible as testing a current batch of slurry may not have any contamination. That still does not prove that previous batches of slurry were contaminated or not.

Kwitty said:
Unless they tested a new sealed container of yeast from White Labs, good luck! That contamination could have been anywhere! On anything! One mistake, one missed spot while cleaning and sanitizing and that's it. The best Left Hand can hope for is is a Judge and/or Jury that doesn't understand. My guess is that's what they're betting on.
Click to expand...

Again, testing a new container from a current batch only proves that the current batch is not contaminated. But, yes, unless WL still has yeast from the same batch that was used on the culprit bottles (and can prove that there is no contaminates) then it is Left Hands gamble.
 
While I understand people's skepticism; the full claims are here: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Left-Hand-v-White-Labs-COMPLAINT.pdf

They allegedly reassembled their brewery and only the white lab pitches used in their product range were effected. Although as you say it'll be tougher to prove that white labs included diastaticus in the recalled batches.

There are other brewery reports of diastaticus contamination if you search google, aswell as someone claiming they have tested some packets at the weihenstephaner lab which produced a positive. Also they only just recently updated the descriptions of their strains which are S v diastaticus.

Lastly many people who have used their wild and bacteria strains have had contamination - whether or not this was intentional is not known.

I like white labs; they have a good product range, they help with a few talks on youtube and basic email questions plus they have done a lot to help research (domestication of yeast paper etc) but this doesn't look good.

edit: oh and in this article white labs respond - https://www.brewbound.com/news/left-hand-files-lawsuit-white-labs-contaminated-yeast

edit 2: I hope the yeast bay's services don't get disrupted.
 
Last edited:
These things happen - and it seems the brewery has taken reasonable steps to eliminate other sources of contamination. It's kinda telling that most of their brews, going through the same pipes etc, were not affected, only the beers that used WLP090 had a problem.

This kind of thing happens more than you might think - there's been rumours of problems recently with some Fermentis dry yeasts in the Bermondsey breweries in London.
 
The key will be determining when they yeast was contaminated. Left Hand says it was contaminated when it left White Labs. Does White Labs testing include testing for diastaticus.
 
Have to wait for the decision. The brewery says they have identified WL yeast to be the source of contamination, but they don't really say how they were able to do it. Ok, the beers they brewed with WL strain were contaminated and that would be circumstantial evidence.
 
FermentedCulture said:
BE-134 is S cerevisiae var diastaticus also. Do you know if this was the strain being used?
Click to expand...
US-05 I believe was the yeast they thought they were using, although obviously Be-134 will be kicking around the Fermentis production facilities.
 
Northern_Brewer said:
US-05 I believe was the yeast they thought they were using, although obviously Be-134 will be kicking around the Fermentis production facilities.
Click to expand...

Yikes, I kinda hope they used a saison yeast before otherwise this might be bad...

Mangrove Jacks has a french saison yeast which is high attenuating, there's probably a high chance that's one of these strains but I haven't seen any reports from people using them yet. I've seen reports about Lallemand Danstar Belle Saison cross contamination though.
 
ESBrewer said:
Have to wait for the decision. The brewery says they have identified WL yeast to be the source of contamination, but they don't really say how they were able to do it. Ok, the beers they brewed with WL strain were contaminated and that would be circumstantial evidence.
Click to expand...

Page 7 of the complaint shows how they were able to do it.

enkamania said:
The key will be determining when they yeast was contaminated. Left Hand says it was contaminated when it left White Labs. Does White Labs testing include testing for diastaticus.
Click to expand...

Page 10 states it doesn't.
 
malhal said:
Page 7 of the complaint shows how they were able to do it.



Page 10 states it doesn't.
Click to expand...

That is what Left Hand is saying in a complaint, which is just enough to meet pleading requirements. It isnt evidence, and it is not necessarily the truth or what happened. Going to have to wait for WL response and see how this litigation sets up.
 
GilaMinumBeer said:
May have not been possible as testing a current batch of slurry may not have any contamination. That still does not prove that previous batches of slurry were contaminated or not.



Again, testing a new container from a current batch only proves that the current batch is not contaminated. But, yes, unless WL still has yeast from the same batch that was used on the culprit bottles (and can prove that there is no contaminates) then it is Left Hands gamble.
Click to expand...
I only meant if they tested an unopened container and found it there too it would be a smoking gun.
 
FermentedCulture said:
While I understand people's skepticism; the full claims are here: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Left-Hand-v-White-Labs-COMPLAINT.pdf

They allegedly reassembled their brewery and only the white lab pitches used in their product range were effected. Although as you say it'll be tougher to prove that white labs included diastaticus in the recalled batches.

There are other brewery reports of diastaticus contamination if you search google, aswell as someone claiming they have tested some packets at the weihenstephaner lab which produced a positive. Also they only just recently updated the descriptions of their strains which are S v diastaticus.

Lastly many people who have used their wild and bacteria strains have had contamination - whether or not this was intentional is not known.

I like white labs; they have a good product range, they help with a few talks on youtube and basic email questions plus they have done a lot to help research (domestication of yeast paper etc) but this doesn't look good.

edit: oh and in this article white labs respond - https://www.brewbound.com/news/left-hand-files-lawsuit-white-labs-contaminated-yeast

edit 2: I hope the yeast bay's services don't get disrupted.
Click to expand...
Just because only the beer made with White Labs yeast was contaminated doesn't make them guilty. Could be dumb luck getting contamination from a hose or a seal that was missed. Could be dumb luck it it only showed in the beer made with White Labs. I'm not saying it isn't White Labs fault, I'm just saying good luck proving it! Unless someone else had a problem or they find a sealed container of yeast contaminated it's going to be a tough case to prove.
 
Maybe Longmont can't handle that San Diego Super? :bott:

Edit to include: It was funny in my head since I live in San Diego and travel to Longmont often for work. Left Hand being a regular stop. Inside jokes with yourself don't always land well...
 
MaxStout said:
Here's the complaint for those interested (PDF).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link!

Provided the allegations and testing methods are true and proven, the sought compensation does not paint a pretty picture for White Labs.

Makes one wonder if other WL clients had similar contamination experiences, or if the problem was contained to yeast only sold to Left Hand.

Did I miss something or did Left Hand NOT test or had NOT tested the yeast batch as they received it straight from White Labs? That would be the missing link of essential proof, IMO. It looks as if they were testing beer, again, after fermentation. Is it possible the vector was introduced during Left Hand's process?
 
triethylborane said:
That is what Left Hand is saying in a complaint, which is just enough to meet pleading requirements. It isnt evidence, and it is not necessarily the truth or what happened. Going to have to wait for WL response and see how this litigation sets up.
Click to expand...

I take it you’re in the legal field, considering you know the above and that the firm they went with is a prestigious and expensive one. Do you have a take on the strength of the complaint? It seems reasonable to me, though I’d imagine proof might be difficult to come by.
 
IslandLizard said:
Thanks for the link!

Provided the allegations and testing methods are true and proven, the sought compensation does not paint a pretty picture for White Labs.

Makes one wonder if other WL clients had similar contamination experiences, or if the problem was contained to yeast only sold to Left Hand.

Did I miss something or did Left Hand NOT test or had NOT tested the yeast batch as they received it straight from White Labs? That would be the missing link of essential proof, IMO. It looks as if they were testing beer, again, after fermentation. Is it possible the vector was introduced during Left Hand's process?
Click to expand...

I don't know what testing obligations existed between WL and LH. It could be a defense for WL to claim LH had some "duty to mitigate" damage, i.e., testing a small batch before moving forward with a full batch. OTOH, if this is a yeast that LH had continually purchased from WL and used with no prior issues, that defense would be weak. WL will likely raise other defenses, such as improper use, storage, contamination, etc. In the discovery phase, each party will be obtaining documents and other evidence from the other. Through this information processes will be scrutinized thoroughly.

This is really just a garden variety negligence claim between a customer and vendor. This kind of litigation happens a lot. Businesses in many fields sue suppliers for damages due to defective goods. It could be tainted produce sold to a restaurant chain, or airbags sold to an automobile manufacturer. WL may have warranty language that attempts to limit liability, but warranty claims are often useless in tort law, if the plaintiff can show negligence. It gets down to defendant's (WL) duty of care, and if that duty was breached. Plaintiff has to show some causation between the breach and the damages suffered. The nature of damages are another question. LH is claiming treble damages; everybody throws that one in a complaint like this. But some kind of intent usually must be shown for that, and I find it highly unlikely what WL, if they did ship defective product, did so willfully. But if LH can connect the dots and show that WL's negligence caused decline in their sales and other losses, those can be awarded.

If this matter isn't resolved by settlement and it goes to trial, it will likely be a battle between the parties' expert witnesses.
 
The fact that per #94/95, WL were certifying that WLP090 was free of wild yeast yet subsequently said that they were not actually testing for diastaticus rather weakens their case - if the "yeast expert" was not testing for diastaticus then it seems a bit unreasonable for a customer to do their QC for them. It's not like they didn't know the yeast would be going into wort and then bottles over a period of months.

And per #93, it looks like the brewery have tested packages of yeast directly and found diastaticus, it's not just in the beer.

Obviously we don't know the details, but it's not looking good for WL.
 
Yes, it sounds strange when WL says they don't have ability to test for diastaticus as it is such a common and well known contamination i yeast cultures. I think at the moment White Labs exactly knows if there was diastaticus, it is not that hard to test and they certainly have some samples stored from each batch (if they are yeast/quality ctrl experts). The case doesn't look as good for them as I first thought. The brewery also said that another brewery had similar results from the same strain which makes it much more likely that the yeast is the source. Even if they didn't test the yeast slurry directly (they may have done that, too).
 
ESBrewer said:
Yes, it sounds strange when WL says they don't have ability to test for diastaticus as it is such a common and well known contamination i yeast cultures. I think at the moment White Labs exactly knows if there was diastaticus, it is not that hard to test and they certainly have some samples stored from each batch (if they are yeast/quality ctrl experts). The case doesn't look as good for them as I first thought. The brewery also said that another brewery had similar results from the same strain which makes it much more likely that the yeast is the source. Even if they didn't test the yeast slurry directly (they may have done that, too).
Click to expand...
The only way I see LH getting anything from this lawsuit is going rest on whether they can provide legitimate proof that the product given directly by WL was contaminated prior to any part of the brewing process, otherwise everything is purely circumstantial especially since we're talking about the infection of microorganisms. It'd be like suing the guy who showed up sick to work for the days you missed cuz you got sick from him. There needs to be strong objective proof demonstrating failure of quality control under WL. The bigger problem for WL is that they stand to lose alot more than this case. Their reputation is already tainted from the mere accusation itself, and if they lose, you can bet other breweries are going to be lining up for their shot at WL too.
 
^ Yes you're right, the yeast slurry should have been tested (by a third party). According to the descriptions in complaint LH had a chance to do this. Did they do it in a reliable way? That's an important question. The complaint doesn't give the answer, LH just says that "tests showed" that yeast contained the contamination, but the court will need more information if these test were on the slurry before anything from the brewery got in there. But anyway, it sounds strange if WL says (in any context) that they don't have ability to test diastaticus..probably you need nothing more than a PCR machine to run some sort of test and that's what they have.
 
Last edited:
Northern_Brewer said:
The fact that per #94/95, WL were certifying that WLP090 was free of wild yeast yet subsequently said that they were not actually testing for diastaticus rather weakens their case - if the "yeast expert" was not testing for diastaticus then it seems a bit unreasonable for a customer to do their QC for them. It's not like they didn't know the yeast would be going into wort and then bottles over a period of months.

And per #93, it looks like the brewery have tested packages of yeast directly and found diastaticus, it's not just in the beer.

Obviously we don't know the details, but it's not looking good for WL.
Click to expand...

ESBrewer said:
^ Yes you're right, the yeast slurry should have been tested (by a third party). According to the descriptions in complaint LH had a chance to do this. Did they do it in a reliable way? That's an important question. The complaint doesn't give the answer, LH just says that "tests showed" that yeast contained the contamination, but the court will need more information if these test were on the slurry before anything from the brewery got in there. But anyway, it sounds strange if WL says (in any context) that they don't have ability to test diastaticus..probably you need nothing more than a PCR machine to run some sort of test and that's what they have.
Click to expand...


Guys, this is the complaint by the plaintiff. All they have to do is plead facts that give notice to the defendant of the claims they intend to pursue. None of this is evidentiary nor is it necessarily the actual facts.

Its too soon to say it is "not looking good for WL" is to preemptively dismiss what WL has to say, which will be in their response.

@MaxStout one thing that does seem sure is in the possibility this goes to trial, that voir dire will include questioning about homebrewing, lol.
 
yourlastchance89 said:
Their reputation is already tainted from the mere accusation itself, and if they lose, you can bet other breweries are going to be lining up for their shot at WL too.
Click to expand...

Lol, no, its just business. Lawsuits are just part of the cost of doing business and at this point we only have one side of the story . . .
 
triethylborane said:
Guys, this is the complaint by the plaintiff. All they have to do is plead facts that give notice to the defendant of the claims they intend to pursue. None of this is evidentiary nor is it necessarily the actual facts.

Its too soon to say it is "not looking good for WL" is to preemptively dismiss what WL has to say, which will be in their response.

@MaxStout one thing that does seem sure is in the possibility this goes to trial, that voir dire will include questioning about homebrewing, lol.
Click to expand...

I agree, I was merely stating that the burden of proof, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that WL did in fact act as the point of origin of LH’s infected batches is a pretty high bar. I am sure they wouldn’t go through with the lawsuit unless they had some form of sufficient evidence behind their complaints. All I am saying is it is hard to overcome that reasonable doubt considering this is brewing where infections do happen on a frequent enough basis on all levels, microorganisms are constantly and universally present throughout the entire Earth, and I am sure WL operates on a similar level of quality control to pharmaceuticals in regards to their products, whereas breweries, while still maintaining an aspect of cleanliness, are not going to be close to that sort of level and more prone for infections. The facts aren’t even out yet so of course this is all surmising, but even so the mere fact WL is being accused of this is a blemish on their reputation regardless. I guarantee anyone buying yeast in the future that views this thread is going to second guess getting it from WL with these events in mind.
 
It's a civil case, so "beyond reasonable doubt" is not the standard of review. The standard is "preponderance of evidence," which is a much lower standard of proof. It gets down to whichever side has the stronger argument. The plaintiff (Left Hand) bears the burden of proof. It has to establish all of the elements necessary to show that WL was negligent. Right now all we have is LH's claims, which are only allegations.

As TEB noted, we haven't seen WL's side. There could be a lot more going on here. The rubber hits the road after discovery, when the facts start coming out.
 
yourlastchance89 said:
I agree, I was merely stating that the burden of proof, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that WL did in fact act as the point of origin of LH’s infected batches is a pretty high bar. I am sure they wouldn’t go through with the lawsuit unless they had some form of sufficient evidence behind their complaints. All I am saying is it is hard to overcome that reasonable doubt considering this is brewing where infections do happen on a frequent enough basis on all levels, microorganisms are constantly and universally present throughout the entire Earth, and I am sure WL operates on a similar level of quality control to pharmaceuticals in regards to their products, whereas breweries, while still maintaining an aspect of cleanliness, are not going to be close to that sort of level and more prone for infections. The facts aren’t even out yet so of course this is all surmising, but even so the mere fact WL is being accused of this is a blemish on their reputation regardless. I guarantee anyone buying yeast in the future that views this thread is going to second guess getting it from WL with these events in mind.
Click to expand...

The burden of proof is actually a preponderance of the evidence, which a lesser burden than beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal proceeding standard). MaxStout had this nailed, its going to be a battle of the experts if it goes to trial.

LH has losses and they want to recover those losses. One way to do that is to sue and WL is an obvious defendant given what they supply. Or at least Left Hand believes that WL is sophisticated enough to negotiate with them to mitigate their losses. Complaints get dismissed, not saying that is what will happen here, but its far too soon to write the doom and gloom on WL.

In fact, proudly purchasing some WLP051 for a stout Im going to brew on Friday.
 
triethylborane said:
Went with Holland and Hart for representation, well, they aint the little guy any more lol
Click to expand...
Haha, I remeber filling growlers there on the back way home from boulder. Yeah its changed.

Speaking of boulder, it seems there is a lot of love for wl yeast. I heard Chris White on a podcast and he seems a pretty cool likeable guy. My experiences with their yeast have not been overly great. And anecdotally I have heard this from onther brewer. Cant remember who. All imo.
 
Last edited:
WB-06 is now classified as diastaticus.

edit: information via milkthefunk group in which a member asked and got the latest data sheets from fermentis.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

DevilsCups
What's the deal with White Labs London Fog pitch rate?
Replies
7
Views
450
DevilsCups
DevilsCups
Shooey852002
White labs expired yeast
Replies
6
Views
720
Bassman2003
B
PistolaPete
Where to post questions about fermented cucumbers (pickles)?
Replies
14
Views
614
Deadalus
Deadalus
loonster
96% Attenuation WLP540?
Replies
4
Views
698
jsphlynch
jsphlynch
T
Anyone using BrewBuilt Kettles?
Replies
1
Views
438
Bobby_M
Bobby_M

Latest posts

Back
Top