PITTSBURGH – A California man has filed a class action lawsuit against The Kraft Heinz Company, connected to claims that its Maxwell House coffee products falsely advertise how many cups of coffee they can make.
Randall Sulzer of San Diego, Calif. filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on July 31 versus The Kraft Heinz Company, of Pittsburgh.
Sulzer says after buying Maxwell House coffee, he was unhappy to learn that he could not make as many cups of coffee with the product as the package had advertised, and claims that a number of Maxwell House products mislead customers into thinking that the products contain more coffee than they actually do.
For $8.50, Sulzer states that he purchased a canister of Maxwell House Master Blend Light coffee near his home in San Diego, being drawn to the advertisement that claimed the product “makes up to 210 six-fluid-ounce cups” of coffee.
Despite following the brewing instructions, Sulzer says he discovered that the product made far less cups of coffee than the advertised quantity.
As an example, Sulzer pointed to Maxwell House’s “100% Columbian” coffee product, which states the product contains 10.5 ounces of coffee and which can make up to 90 six-fluid-ounce cups.
Sulzer adds 90 tablespoons of ground coffee are needed to make 90 servings, or cups, of coffee. But the coffee canister allegedly does not contain enough coffee to make 90 cups of coffee, because one tablespoon of ground coffee weighs around five grams.
In order to make 90 cups of coffee, the product would need to contain 450 grams of coffee. But, Sulzer says, the 10.5-ounce tin only weighs 297 grams, meaning it can only make about 59 cups of coffee using Maxwell House’s own brewing suggestion.
“Thus, it is impossible for the Maxwell House ‘100% Colombian’ product to contain enough ground coffee to make anywhere close to 90 cups of coffee. Defendant’s representation that the 10.5 oz. tin “makes up to 210 six-fluid-ounce cups” is therefore false, deceptive and misleading,” the suit says.
“Defendant also knew or should have known that Plaintiff and other consumers, in purchasing the products, would rely on defendant’s serving size representations. Nonetheless, defendant deceptively advertises the products in order to deceive consumers into believing they are getting considerably more coffee than they are paying for.”
According to Sulzer, this type of marketing would be akin to selling someone a six-pack of soda which only contained four cans of soda, and Kraft Heinz is able to profit from the alleged deception – because “a reasonable consumer cannot measure or calculate how many servings the products can make, nor are reasonable consumers expected to keep track of the precise number of cups of coffee they make over a period of time.”
Sulzer alleges that he and other customers were financially harmed by The Kraft Heinz Company because they lost money on their purchase of the defective Maxwell House products in question.
The class action suit states Sulzer and many other customers are likely to purchase another Maxwell House product again, without knowing they are purchasing a potentially-mislabeled product.
Sulzer brings counts on behalf of the following classes:
• Nationwide Class
All persons who purchased any of the products in the United States within the applicable statute of limitations period.
• California Subclass
All persons who purchased any of the products in the state of California within the applicable statute of limitations period.
• California Consumer Subclass
All persons who purchased any of the products in the state of California for personal, household or family purposes, within the applicable statute of limitations period.
For counts of violating the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the plaintiff is seeking a long list of relief, including:
• Certification of this case as a class action on behalf of the classes defined above, appointment of plaintiff as class representative, and appointment of his counsel as class counsel;
• A declaration that defendant’s actions, as described herein, violate the claims described herein;
• An award of injunctive and other equitable relief as is necessary to protect the interests of plaintiff and the classes, including an order prohibiting defendant from engaging in the unlawful act described above;
• An award to plaintiff and the proposed classes of restitution and/or other equitable relief, including, without limitation, restitutionary disgorgement of all profits and unjust enrichment that defendant obtained from plaintiff and the proposed classes as a result of its unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices described herein, plus:
• All economic, monetary, actual, consequential, compensatory, statutory, and treble damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, pre- and post-judgment interest, such further relief that the Court may deem just and proper and a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Gary F. Lynch, Scott G. Braden and Todd D. Carpenter of Carlson Lynch, in Pittsburgh and San Diego.
The defendants have not yet secured legal counsel.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01154
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com