MillerCoors sued for marketing Blue Moon as craft

[chewse]

I wonder if this will lead to other lawsuits related to big brewery owned brands (i.e., Shock Top, etc.) marketed as Craft beers.

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2015/05/millercoors-sued-for-marketing-blue-moon-as-craft.html

 

[wi_brewer]

Really, who cares if they call it craft? Is there an official/legal definition for craft beer? MillerCoors will not lose this suit.

 

[andrewmaixner]

"craft" is the new "premium", in a few years everything will have that label and a new word will have to be chosen.

 

[chewse]

Generally speaking, craft beer is produced by craft brewers. Craft brewers are defined by the Brewers Association as:

https://www.brewersassociation.org/statistics/craft-brewer-defined/

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

Really, who cares if they call it craft? Is there an official/legal definition for craft beer? MillerCoors will not lose this suit.

Well, they aren't calling it craft. It is being *marketed* as a craft beer. No where on the label, anywhere, do you see that its a Miller/Coors product. That to me *is* a problem. I love Blue Moon, to the point that most of other craft wits and such I don't like as much as I like Blue Moon (nothing beats a cold blue moon 16oz can on a kayak on the lake on a hot day).

The labels really should display who the parent company is. Owned by New Glarus, you can see on all their labels "Oh it's a New Glarus beer brewed by New Glarus Brewery". Blue Moon "Hmm, Blue Moon, this must be brewed by Blue Moon Brewery in uh, somewhere, looks like craft and it doesn't say BMC on the label so it must be a craft beer". If the label said in no uncertain terms "This beer is a MillerCoors product" SOMEWHERE on the label, then people have no excuse to say "oh its marketed as a craft product", without that its completely reasonable mistake to assume its a craft beer.

Edit: Also what chewse posted, theres a legal definition of what a craft beer is, and isnt.

 

[Psylocide]

Yes, but that's the Brewer's Association's take on the word... I don't think there is any "official" term for craft beer as recognized by the TTB or any other entity that would actually matter in this argument.

Was it "crafted?" Sure was.

 

[Homercidal]

Frivolous lawsuit. How much damage did this guy get from buying a beer he liked to drink?

None.

Maybe some pride hurt when he wouldn't believe his friends who told him it was a Miller product.

Big whoop. He needs to stop being such a beer snob.

 

[cmoewes]

Oh my. I don't think the Brewers Association's definition of "craft beer" is legally binding is it?

 

[mdbrewer1]

I don't get it. How is the guy being harmed? Did the beer start tasting differently once he found out that it was brewed by MillerCoors? Does the fact that it is produced by a large company automatically mean they should charge less for it?

Seems that a self-proclaimed "beer aficionado" would have been able to tell the difference between a microbrew and macrobrew anyway.

 

[chewse]

Oh my. I don't think the Brewers Association's definition of "craft beer" is legally binding is it?

Nope. The definition is for guild membership purposes. However, the guidelines help to segment the beer market. The craft beer market segment generally is considered consisting of premium beer product (independent of taste) since its more in tune with "hand crafted" artisan production rather than mass production. Which supports/justifies the higher price.

 

[mdbrewer1]

Nope. The definition is for guild membership purposes. However, the guidelines help to segment the beer market. The craft beer market segment generally is considered consisting of premium beer product (independent of taste) since its more in tune with "hand crafted" artisan production rather than mass production. Which supports/justifies the higher price.

If not taste, what constitutes premium then?

 

[Psylocide]

Nope. The definition is for guild membership purposes. However, the guidelines help to segment the beer market. The craft beer market segment generally is considered consisting of premium beer product (independent of taste) since its more in tune with "hand crafted" artisan production rather than mass production. Which supports/justifies the higher price.

Opinions are fun, aren't they?

 

[podz]

So a monopolistic company is using deceptive marketing practices to eat the smaller guy's lunch. That's called capitalism and as I understand it, most of you US people are capitalists. So what's the real problem here?

 

[Psylocide]

So a monopolistic company is using deceptive marketing practices to eat the smaller guy's lunch. That's called capitalism and as I understand it, most of you US people are capitalists. So what's the real problem here?

It's not even deceptive... Bud Light could slap Craft Beer on their label and no one could say **** because it isn't a binding or defined term by any regulatory entity, so, I don't see what the problem is. Or why anyone cares.

I know what's good and what isn't, if Budweiser came out with Bud IPA and it tasted like any of my favorites at a lower price point, you better believe I'd drink the **** out of it.

If you're buying a product and don't know who produced it, well... that's on you, isn't it?

 

[BlkWater_brewer]

This has nothing to do with Craft Beer. This is just your typical ploy by a greedy lawyer and his recruited client looking for an easy payday. Couple that with an aggressive media and voila!

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

If you're buying a product and don't know who produced it, well... that's on you, isn't it?

That'd be like buying a coffee and expecting it to be hot without having to read it on a label.

We don't live in that world anymore. Haven't for a long time.

As ridiculous as this lawsuit is, I expect they'll settle before anyone wins. The guy will prolly agree to a lifetime supply of Blue Moon as compensation.

 

[podz]

As ridiculous as this lawsuit is, I expect they'll settle before anyone wins. The guy will prolly agree to a lifetime supply of Blue Moon as compensation.

That's just too funny!

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

If you're buying a product and don't know who produced it, well... that's on you, isn't it?

If you bought some chicken at the grocery store and take it home under the assumption its an American made product under American standards of production. Take it home and everyone in your family gets mercury poisoning.

You would expect the grocery store to be able to track it back to the source of where the mercury poisoning came from correct? Wouldn't you feel like they should have the chicken thats Chinese in origin and laced with mercury to be marketed and labeled "Origin country: China" and the non-mercury laced chicken to be marketed "Origin Country: USA"? This isn't meant to pick on China or chickens or anything, replace all the country names and product with whatever you want and you get to the core of the argument, we should be able to tell in seconds just by looking at the label who produces the products we consume. Is a lawsuit needed? I wish it wasn't I wish it was just part of the law that companies should ahve to put their name on the labels in a very obvious way.

I personally, before buying beer, bring up the company in google to try and find out if its owned by BMC or not. Hmm Shocktop should I buy this? Oh nope, they're owned by a big papa company. Hmm, New Glarus, nope owned by Deb and Dan Carey, looks legit to me. Should everyone have to do this? No, insert any product into the equation and you could end up in a endless spiral of trying to locate the true source of that product, shellfish is one of the few products thats regulated to a degree that makes it very easy to locate the source.

 

[cmoewes]

But did he buy it because it was "craft beer" or because he liked how it tasted? I presume that if he kept buying it he must have liked it so how does it's craftyness impact his drinking.

 

[Psylocide]

If you bought some chicken at the grocery store and take it home under the assumption its an American made product under American standards of production. Take it home and everyone in your family gets mercury poisoning.

You would expect the grocery store to be able to track it back to the source of where the mercury poisoning came from correct? Wouldn't you feel like they should have the chicken thats Chinese in origin and laced with mercury to be marketed and labeled "Origin country: China" and the non-mercury laced chicken to be marketed "Origin Country: USA"? This isn't meant to pick on China or chickens or anything, replace all the country names and product with whatever you want and you get to the core of the argument, we should be able to tell in seconds just by looking at the label who produces the products we consume. Is a lawsuit needed? I wish it wasn't I wish it was just part of the law that companies should ahve to put their name on the labels in a very obvious way.

I personally, before buying beer, bring up the company in google to try and find out if its owned by BMC or not. Hmm Shocktop should I buy this? Oh nope, they're owned by a big papa company. Hmm, New Glarus, nope owned by Deb and Dan Carey, looks legit to me. Should everyone have to do this? No, insert any product into the equation and you could end up in a endless spiral of trying to locate the true source of that product, shellfish is one of the few products thats regulated to a degree that makes it very easy to locate the source.

What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?

There is a huge difference between knowingly mis-labeling a country of origin (which is illegal) and putting a term on a product that is not regulated by any legal entity, as a marketing slogan.

 

[MaxStout]

Sure, the litigation is silly. But courts have often made their own interpretations based on the plain meaning of language. There is no requirement that the term "craft beer" be defined or otherwise recognized by some regulatory body.

I do a lot of IP litigation work. Cases in that area sometimes hinge on the meaning of a single word. There is even caselaw where the scope of a patent claim comes down to a term's definition in a dictionary.

It will likely come down to what the term means in "the ordinary course of business," a standard often employed in contract and business torts law. "Craft beer" is a rather nebulous term. It's subjective. But that won't stop a court from rendering an interpretation, if the litigation gets that far. Maybe they'll do a Stewart Potter and say "I know it when I see it."

Still, I wouldn't bet against MillerCoors.

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?

There is a huge difference between knowingly mis-labeling a country of origin (which is illegal) and putting a term on a product that is not regulated by any legal entity, as a marketing slogan.

I was applying your logic to other areas. By your logic its on us as consumers to know the country of origin so we shouldn't have to regulate and require labeling the country of origin because of we buy a Chinese product "that's on us".

Should miller/coors and by extension any beer company be required to put their name or the name of their parent company on the label? If you say no to this then it calls into question other actual legally required labeling standards.

I am not saying the lawsuit isn't silly, the guy is kind of a moron for arguing without knowing the actual facts of the situation. Maybe he truly truly thought it was a small craft brewery owned by mom and pop making this beer and he thought he was buying the product and helping a company keep its employees working. As well maybe he loved the taste and still does, god I still do and drink it knowing full well who the parent company is (albeit blue moon makes up less than .5% of my yearly drinking quota).

It's a question of, was it deceptive of blue moon and by extension anyone selling a beer under the guise of being a craft beer? Yes. Was the guy sort of an idiot for not taking a minute to look it up? Yes. Should he have to with beer and by extension any product he consumes? No, it should be on the label so a consumer can make an informed decision same as nutrition labeling or country of origin labeling. Should a lawsuit be required to get everyone labeling their beers with their parent company names? No it should just already be on the label, but a lawsuit will be the only way to get that changed.

 

[Owly055]

"craft" is the new "premium", in a few years everything will have that label and a new word will have to be chosen.

The English language is in constant flux......... How many words have changed their meaning entirely in our lifetime? ....... Gay for example meant happy and cheerful when I was growing up.....now use the word intending it's real meaning (original), and at best it goes over like a fart in church..... at worst provokes a fight.....Another example is "truck"..... Something that referred to a heavy truck with at least dual wheels, but now it refers to a Toyota pickup. A new word of course will have to be chosen...... and until then let the buyer beware. There are those of us who really do not want to support the BMC brewers, regardless of the product. The fact that a BMC company bought the rights to Blue Moon speaks highly of the product. Worse is when they buy out a company like Widmer, then sink their best products.

That said, nobody can equal the BMC brewers as far as quality control and repeatability.....

H.W.

 

[GilaMinumBeer]

But did he buy it because it was "craft beer" or because he liked how it tasted? I presume that if he kept buying it he must have liked it so how does it's craftyness impact his drinking.

Because BMC hate is bound only by the simple notion of "because they can".

Except that notion is challenged when consumers can't dislike a product unless they are aware it's BMC.

 

[BigFloyd]

Would anyone with half a brain believe that this poor schlub had his beer-drinking world shattered upon being told that his beloved Blue Moon is mass-produced and not brewed in tiny batches at some little mom & pop micro out in the countryside?

Hint - when a beer is stacked high in the cooler at every Walmart you walk into, it's produced in mass quantities by a large corporation.

 

[Psylocide]

I was applying your logic to other areas. By your logic its on us as consumers to know the country of origin so we shouldn't have to regulate and require labeling the country of origin because of we buy a Chinese product "that's on us".

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

If we are talking about labeling practices, its apples to apples.

How is it not apples to apples? Country of origin labeling vs. parent company labeling? One is currently legally required, one is not currently legally required.

Are you saying that miller/coors should not have to put on the label of blue moon "Product of Miller/Coors"?

 

[mdbrewer1]

If we are talking about labeling practices, its apples to apples.

How is it not apples to apples? Country of origin labeling vs. parent company labeling? One is currently legally required, one is not currently legally required.

Are you saying that miller/coors should not have to put on the label of blue moon "Product of Miller/Coors"?

You explain the difference in your post.

 

[ArkotRamathorn]

You explain the difference in your post.

But they are both labeling practices...

 

[chewse]

Opinions are fun, aren't they?

Ah yes and you my friend have no shortage.....