• On July 8, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs and held that a “Manufactured in the USA 100%” claim on Defendant Bigelow’s tea bag products was materially false. See Order (Law360 subscription required). The issue of material falsity was common to the class-certified claims Plaintiffs brought under California law (fraud, misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, and violation of the CA Consumer Legal Remedies Act).
  • The tea bag products at issue were blended and packaged in the United States, but the tea leaves were imported from abroad. Furthermore, the tea leaves were processed abroad “in order to be consumable and suitable for use in commercial tea products.” The Defendants argued that the claim was true because it referred to the tea bags (mixed and packaged in the United States) and not the tea leaves.
  • The Court rejected this argument because consumers purchase tea bags for the tea leaves, and it was not disputed that the tea leaves were processed abroad. For reasons not clear in the opinion, Plaintiffs did not pursue a claim under CA Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17533.7, which makes unlawful a “made in the USA” or similar claim where an “article, unit, or part thereof, has been entirely or substantially made, manufactured, or produced outside of the United States.” However, the Court found it appropriate to rely on that section because there was “no substantive difference between the terms ‘made’ and ‘manufactured’” for the purpose of its legal analysis.
  • The Court also held that the claim was material as a matter of law because it was proscribed by the legislature.