PHILADELPHIA – The makers of Steaz’s “Organic Lightly Sweetened Iced Green Tea” contend that a class action lawsuit brought against it from plaintiffs all over the U.S., alleging the beverage contains higher-than-healthy sugar levels, is baseless in all of its claims.
The plaintiffs first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 6 versus Healthy Beverage, LLC, of Doylestown.
“Consumers, including plaintiffs and class members, expect that the amount of sugar advertised on the front of the label does not severely contradict the ingredients actually contained in the product itself. This is especially the case when the consumer pays a premium for an organic product or a product which purports to contain minimal or low amount of sugar,” the suit stated.
“However, defendant’s product misled consumers by using labeling to deceive the consumer into believing that the beverage is only ‘lightly sweetened’ meanwhile the product contains 20 grams of added sugar. 20 grams of added sugar is a significant and excessive amount. The American Heart Association recommends that men consume 37.5 and women consume 25 grams of added sugar per day respectively.”
The suit argued one significant contributing factor for such a large rise in American obesity rates is sugar consumption.
Each of the plaintiffs said they purchased the product several times over the last four years at local retailers in their respective states and relied on the phrase “Lightly Sweetened” on the beverage’s labeling believing that the product was, in fact, low in sugar.
Furthermore, they would not have purchased or paid more for the product had she “known or was aware that the product was not low in sugar, but rather, had much more sugar in it than prominently represented and advertised on the front of the product’s label.”
“As a result, defendant’s misrepresentation regarding its product being ‘lightly sweetened’, which appears prominently on the front of the label, is material to consumers who purchase defendant’s product because such consumers believe the representation to be true,” according to the lawsuit.
“In other words, consumers believe they are purchasing a ‘lightly sweetened’ product which is low in sugar content and pass over other cheaper alternatives to make a purchase decision that better suits their health preferences and lifestyle.”
The plaintiffs argued because Steaz Tea is not “lightly sweetened” but instead is “high” in added sugars, defendant’s marketing, advertising and labeling of the product is false and misleading.
“Because of defendant’s deceptive advertising practices, consumers, including plaintiffs, were and continue to be fraudulently induced to purchase the products and have suffered damages,” the suit said.
UPDATE
The beverage company responded with an extensive motion to dismiss the complaint on March 22, claiming the suit had failed to state any claims upon which relief could be granted.
“Plaintiffs are twelve purchasers of Steaz Organic Lightly Sweetened Iced Green Tea who allege defendant misled them about the sugar content in the product. Wholly undermining plaintiffs’ claim is the fact that the product label plainly states: (1) The amount of sugar, (2) The amount of added sugar, and (3) The percent daily value of added sugar in the product,” the dismissal motion stated.
“In spite of this, plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of consumers pretending they could not determine the amount of sugar in the product. Plaintiffs seek damages and other relief based on the theory that the product’s sugar content should be lower than the label says it is, because the label describes the product’s taste as ‘lightly sweetened.”
Though the plaintiffs initially asserted a single count for unjust enrichment, the defendant explained the plaintiffs then amended their complaint with fifteen additional causes of action under various state consumer protection laws – none of which, the defendant says, can be proven.
“First, plaintiffs lack standing because they fail to plausibly allege a concrete and particularized injury in fact. Second, plaintiffs lack standing to pursue injunctive relief because they fail to plausibly allege they are likely to suffer future injury from defendant’s conduct. Fourth, plaintiffs’ amended complaint…fails to provide even the most basic information about when and how many times they purchased the product,” the dismissal motion said.
“Fifth, all of plaintiffs’ claims fail because they are premised on an implausible theory of deception and misrepresentation. No reasonable consumer would interpret the statement “lightly sweetened” – a subjective claim about the product’s taste – to mean that the product is lower in sugar than is explicitly stated on the label.”
The defendant added that the plaintiffs’ consumer fraud, false advertising, breach of express and implied warranties and unjust enrichment claims all fail on additional independent grounds – and since the complaint was already amended, that the dismissal should be with prejudice.
For counts of unjust enrichment, the plaintiff is seeking an order certifying the Class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and naming plaintiffs as representatives of the class and plaintiffs’ attorneys as class counsel; an order of equitable monetary relief, an order awarding plaintiffs and the class their reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiffs are represented by David C. Magagna Jr. and Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman in Philadelphia, Gary M. Klinger of Mason Lietz & Klinger in Chicago, Ill., Gary E. Mason of Whitfield Bryson & Mason in Washington, D.C. and Jeffrey S. Goldenberg of Goldenberg Schneider, in Cincinnati, Ohio.
The defendant is represented by Michael Eidel and Clair E. Wischusen of Fox Rothschild, in Philadelphia and Warrington.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-04934
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com