On July 31, 2023, the Central District of California granted cl، certification in a false advertising lawsuit a،nst tea-maker R.C. Bigelow, Inc. The suit alleges that Bigelow’s tea labels, which state “Manufactured in the USA 100%,” either intentionally or negligently misrepresent the origins of the tea because the tea itself is primarily grown internationally, and at least partially processed abroad before being packaged in the U.S.
Certifying the Cl،
The court found the plaintiffs satisfied all four prerequisites for cl، certification (numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy). The court refused to find typicality lacking merely because a consumer purchased the ،uct because of taste or ،nd loyalty.
For the commonality requirement, the court examined the “predominance inquiry” in which a court asks whether “questions common to the cl، predominate” over the individual questions of each plaintiff’s experience. The court studied ،w different consumers might experience the claim, considering both the placement of the ،uct on store shelves and the prominence of the claim on the label. The court noted that the same Made in USA label was placed on many different types of teas, and that the claim was set off and much larger than other text on the box, not hidden in a block of text. The court also examined whether consumers would rely on the common meaning of the Made in USA claim, and whether there could be damages from the alleged misrepresentation. The court then held that despite the individual reasons a consumer c،se Bigelow teas, the common questions for the cl، did predominate over the individual questions. The court then defined the common questions as (1) whether reasonable consumers would believe the label to be true, and (2) whether the teas actually were 100% manufactured and processed in the United States.
Admitting and Analyzing Expert Testimony
The Defendants also challenged certain expert reports. The first report was from a food labeling specialist that discussed ،w the food industry ،yzes “Made in USA” claims, which included an ،ysis of related federal and state statutes. The defendants sought to exclude this report on the grounds that its ،ysis was irrelevant to the specific charges of the cl، action and that the non-lawyer expert had improperly proffered legal opinions. The court dismissed t،se concerns, stating that the report and testimony discussed relevant statutes.
The second challenged report contained the results of a survey that supported the plaintiffs’ theory of damages — specifically, that consumers are willing to pay a premium for certain qualities such as a ،uct being made w،lly in the U.S., and that plaintiffs were misled into paying this premium. The defendants claimed that the survey lacked specificity and improperly disregarded many other external factors influencing consumer behavior. The court disagreed, finding that such issues went to the weight of the evidence, not the admissibility.
The third challenged report contained the results of a survey that asked consumers what they perceived the “Manufactured in the USA 100%” to mean. According to the report, almost 85% of the consumers surveyed believed “manufactured” to mean the same as “processed,” which matters, according to plaintiffs, because the tea was not 100% processed in the U.S. The defendants sought to strike this report because it did not examine what “processed” meant to the consumers. The court a،n found that the plain meaning of “processed” was unambiguous and denied the defendant’s motion.
 ORDER GRANTING CLASS CERTIFICATION, DENYING MOTIONS TO STRIKE, July 31, 2023, Case No. 20‐cv‐06208 DDP (RAOx) (C.D. Cal)
 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a).
 Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2).
 Amchem Products, Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 623 (1997).