Case 3:20-cv-00850-L-BLM Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.1 Page 1 of 19
`
`
`CARLSON LYNCH, LLP
`Todd D. Carpenter (CA 234464)
`tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
`Scott G. Braden (CA 305051)
`sbraden@carlsonlynch.com
`1350 Columbia St., Ste. 603
`San Diego, CA 92101
`Tel:
`(619) 762-1900
`Fax: (619) 756-6991
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`RAMON IBARRA, individually and on
`Case No.:
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`Plaintiff,
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`vs.
`THE FOLGER COFFEE COMPANY, an
`Ohio corporation, and DOES 1-20,
`inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`'20
`
`CV0850
`
`BLM
`
`L
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00850-L-BLM Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.2 Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Ramon Ibarra (“Plaintiff” or “Ibarra”), on behalf of himself and all other
`similarly situated (“Class Members”), brings this consumer class action against Defendant,
`The Folger Coffee Company (“Defendant” or “Folgers”), for unlawful, unfair, and
`deceptive business practices in violation of California Business & Professions Code
`section 17200, et seq., California Business & Professions Code section 17500, et seq., and
`California Civil Code section 1750, et seq. and alleges as follows:
`I.
`NATURE OF ACTION
`Folgers coffee is a household name with sales comprising a significant portion
`1.
`of the $7.8 billion in net sales reported by corporate parent, The J.M. Smucker Company,
`during its last fiscal year. Notwithstanding its unmatched success, the coffee giant engages
`in widespread false and deceptive advertising on its staple coffee cannisters, depriving
`consumers of the benefit of the bargain. In a practice that clearly offends reasonable
`consumer expectations, Defendant engages in a classic bait-and-switch scheme that causes
`unsuspecting consumers to spend more money for less than the advertised amount of coffee
`they believe they are purchasing. The packaging and labeling of many Folgers coffee
`product cannisters (the “Coffee Products”) prominently advertise that they will produce an
`amount of six fluid ounce cups when, in fact, they do not, and the label’s advertised cup
`yield is completely arbitrary.
`In Plaintiff’s case, the cannister purchased—Folgers French Roast, Med-Dark
`2.
`—prominently advertises on its front label that it “MAKES UP TO 210 6 FL OZ CUPS.”
`Instructions on the back panel of the cannister direct consumers to use the following
`measurements: “Cold Water: 1 Serving (6 fl oz)” with “Folgers Coffee: 1 Tablespoon”
`which yields “1 Serving (6 fl oz.)”. This means that each French Roast cannister should
`contain 210 tablespoons of coffee. However, if the back-panel instructions are followed,
`the cannister only produces approximately 156 six fluid-ounce-servings, 54 short of what
`is advertised on the front panel.
` The cannister only contains approximately
`156 tablespoons of ground coffee.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- 1 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-00850-L-BLM Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.3 Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`The same French Roast cannister also comes up short if the coffee is brewed
`3.
`in bulk and the back-panel’s second instruction is followed. This instruction directs users
`to use “Cold Water: 10 Servings” with “1/2 Measuring Cup”1 for “10 Servings.” If
`8 tablespoons generate 10 servings, then 156 tablespoons—the entirety of the cannister—
`produces 195 six fluid-ounce-servings,2 15 cups short of what Folgers represents on its
`front panel.
`Other Coffee Products used to engage in the same scheme, which are also the
`4.
`subject of this action, are depicted in the chart in ¶ 6. These include several of Defendant’s
`roasts in various strengths and sizes. In each Coffee Product, the top right corner of the
`front panel prominently and conspicuously states the number of cups the cannister will
`produce, as shown in the French Roast cannister Plaintiff purchased below:
`
`
`The back panel contains the serving instructions “for best brewing results”
`5.
`and, significantly, goes on to state “This cannisters makes up to 210 suggested strength
`
`1 Or 8 tablespoons.
`2 8/10 = 156/195.
`
`- 2 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-00850-L-BLM Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.4 Page 4 of 19
`
`
`
`6 fl oz servings.” But the only serving suggestions on the product are those provided
`immediately above this statement, as set forth in ¶¶ 2-3 and depicted below:
`
`
`As stated in in ¶¶ 2-3 above and depicted below in ¶ 6, these instructions or
`6.
`suggestions do not produce 210 servings. Consumers reasonably expect that if they follow
`the serving instructions, the Coffee Products will produce the number of servings/cups of
`coffee prominently advertised on their front and back panels. However, they do not. Tests
`performed on the Coffee Products, including the same French Roast cannister purchased
`by Plaintiff, showed that Defendant uniformly and systematically misrepresents its Coffee
`Products:
`
`- 3 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00850-L-BLM Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.5 Page 5 of 19
`
`
`
`Coffee Product
`
`Strength Weight
`
`Advertised
`Number of
`Cups Per
`Coffee
`Product
`
`Measured
`Actual
`Number of
`Measured
`Cups (at
`Number of
`8 Tbsp per
`Cups (at
`10 cup
`1 Tbsp per
`1 cup serv.)
`servs.)
`195
`156
`210
`Med-Dark 686 g
`Folgers French Roast
`195
`156
`210
`Medium
`686 g
`Folgers 100% Colombian
`195
`156
`210
`Dark
`686 g
`Folgers Black Silk
`195
`156
`210
`Medium
`686 g
`Folgers Brazilian Blend
`195
`156
`210
`Folgers Gourmet Supreme Med-Dark 686 g
`195
`156
`210
`Folgers House Blend
`Medium
`686 g
`195
`156
`210
`Folgers Special Roast
`Medium
`686 g
`219
`175
`240
`Folgers Classic Roast
`Medium
`865 g
`219
`175
`240
`Folgers Class Decaf
`Medium
`865 g
`190
`152
`210
`Folgers ½ Caff
`Medium
`720 g
`190
`152
`210
`Folgers Coffeehouse Blend Med-Dark 720 g
`190
`152
`210
`Folgers Breakfast Blend
`Mild
`720 g
`220
`176
`240
`Folgers Simply Smooth
`Mild
`882 g
`At no time does Defendant inform consumers as to the true number of cups a
`7.
`Coffee Product will yield if the back-panel instructions are followed, or that they will not
`result in the advertised amounts of servings. Nor does Defendant inform consumers how
`at all it derived the “Makes Up To” figure stated on its front and back panels.
`Plaintiff and Class Members relied to their detriment on Defendant’s
`8.
`representations regarding the amount of servings each Coffee Product would produce and
`would not have paid to purchase Defendant’s Coffee Products, or would not have paid as
`much as they did for said products, had they known the truth about the Coffee Products’
`actual serving yield according to its instructions. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class
`Members suffered monetary damages as a result of Defendants’ deception and
`misrepresentations.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- 4 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00850-L-BLM Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.6 Page 6 of 19
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`II.
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act,
`9.
`28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) in that: (1) this is a class action involving more than 100 Class
`Members; (2) Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California and Defendant is a citizen of
`the State of Ohio; and (3) the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $5,000,000.00,
`exclusive of interests and costs.
`10. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it conducts
`substantial business in California. Defendant has and continues to actively market,
`promote, and sell the Coffee Products in the State of California through numerous retailers
`and online channels, and Defendant has sufficient minimum contacts with this State and/or
`has sufficiently availed itself of the market in this State through its marketing, promotion
`and sales within this State to render the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court permissible.
`11. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred while
`Plaintiff resided in this judicial district.
`III.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff
`12. Plaintiff Ramon Ibarra resides in San Diego County, California. In or about
`December 2019, Ibarra purchased three cannisters of Folgers French Roast, Med-Dark,
`210 Cups, for $12.59 each from Garden Farms Market, a grocery store located in Lakeside,
`California. Plaintiff read the Coffee Product’s labeling stating that each cannister would
`produce 210 six-ounce cups of coffee before purchasing the Coffee Product. In reliance
`on this representation, Plaintiff purchased the French Roast for his own personal benefit.
`13. Plaintiff would not have purchased the Coffee Product, or would not have paid
`as much as he did, had he known that Defendant misrepresented the amount of servings
`each cannister would produce. Plaintiff was further damaged in his purchase because
`Defendant’s false advertisement artificially inflated the price of the Coffee Product as a
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- 5 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00850-L-BLM Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.7 Page 7 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`result of increased consumer demand generated by the false advertisement, which naturally
`led to an increase in the price charged.
`14. Plaintiff is susceptible to this reoccurring harm because he cannot be certain
`that Defendant has corrected this deceptive and false advertising scheme, and he desires to
`continue to purchase Defendant’s Coffee Products. Plaintiff greatly enjoys Folgers coffee
`and would purchase it fairly regularly and in different varieties, not just the French Roast.
`However, he currently cannot trust that Defendant will label and/or advertise the Coffee
`Products truthfully and in a non-misleading fashion in compliance with California law.
`Plaintiff simply does not have the resources to ensure that Defendant is complying with
`California and federal law with respect to its labeling and advertising of the Coffee
`Products.
`15. Additionally, because of the breadth of Coffee Products involved in
`Defendant’s deceit (at least 13), and the likelihood that Defendant may yet develop and
`market additional products that misrepresent the serving yield, Plaintiff may again, though
`by mistake, purchase a falsely-advertised product from Defendant under the impression
`that the product was improved.
`Defendant
`16. Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state
`of Ohio, with its headquarters and principal place of business at One Strawberry Lane,
`Orrville, OH 44667. Folgers has a rich history dating back to 1850 and is arguably the
`most well-known coffee maker in the United States. The coffee giant excels in offering a
`wide range of products to customers, including varying flavors, roasts and strength of
`coffee. Beginning in 1850 in San Francisco, Folgers is now a household name recognized
`and sold around the world. Since the early 1990s, it has been the largest-selling ground
`coffee in the United States. In the 1980s, Folgers’ slogan “The best part of waking up is
`Folgers in your cup!” and the well-associated jingle became recognizable in households
`across the country, along with the Folgers name. Folgers generates millions of dollars in
`sales each year, a significant portion of which is derived from sales of the Coffee Products
`
`- 6 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Case 3:20-cv-00850-L-BLM Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.8 Page 8 of 19
`
`
`
`in California. In 2008, Folgers was acquired by J.M. Smucker from Procter & Gamble for
`a reported $3 billion.
`17. Plaintiff does not know the true names or capacities of the persons or entities
`sued herein as Does 1-50, inclusive, and therefore sues such defendants by such fictitious
`names. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges,
`that each of the Doe defendants is, in some manner, legally responsible for the damages
`suffered by Plaintiff and the Class Members as alleged herein. Plaintiff will amend his
`Complaint to set forth the true names and capacities of these defendants when they have
`been ascertained, along with appropriate charging allegations, as may be necessary.
`IV.
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`18. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in every preceding
`paragraph as if fully set forth herein.
`19. Folgers’ advertising and marketing of its Coffee Products is false, misleading
`and/or omits material information to consumers because consumers, including Plaintiff,
`expect that if the Coffee Product’s back panel instructions are followed, the cannister will
`yield the advertised number of cups, which are prominently displayed on the front panel
`and restated on the back panel of the cannister. However, nowhere on the Coffee Product
`packaging/label does Defendant notify consumers that the Coffee Product will not yield
`the number of cups represented if the instructions are followed. Nor does Coffee Product
`packaging/label indicate how many cups will actually be produced if the instructions are
`followed, or even how the purchaser can brew the coffee to produce the advertised “Makes
`Up To” number of cups. Instead, the “Makes Up To __ Cups” serving figure is completely
`arbitrary.3 This combination—the misrepresented “Makes Up To __ Cups” and the back-
`panel instructions resulting in the less servings—renders labeling of the Coffee Products
`inherently misleading.
`
`
`3 For instance, without any type of qualification or brewing instructions, consumers could
`conceivably produce 500 cups of coffee from a cannister if the coffee grounds were diluted
`enough.
`- 7 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00850-L-BLM Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.9 Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`20. The back-panel instructions of each Coffee Product clearly state that
`consumers should use either one tablespoon of ground coffee per six fluid-ounce-serving
`or a 1/2 cup (8 tablespoons) per ten six-ounce servings “for best brewing results.” No other
`brewing suggestions, recommendations or instructions appear on the Coffee Products. Yet,
`Defendant completely fails to provide any methodology or measurements whatsoever as to
`how a Coffee Product can be brewed to produce the “Makes Up To __ Cups” amount that
`it advertises. Defendant similarly fails to indicate: (1) how many servings will result from
`following the instructions contained on the back panel and (2) that following the
`instructions will produce less than the “Makes Up To __ Cups” figure. These
`misrepresentations and omissions violate consumers’ reasonable expectations and, as
`alleged herein, California’s consumer protection statutes. The number of servings a Coffee
`Product yields according to its instructions can be determined with objective factual
`evidence, which shows that each Coffee Product is falsely advertised.
`21. Throughout the class period defined below, Defendant has engaged in, and
`continues to engage in, an advertising and marketing campaign that misrepresents its
`Coffee Products. Defendant has engaged in, and continues to engage in, a pattern of willful
`conduct, through affirmative misrepresentations and/or material omissions, designed to
`mislead and lure consumers into purchasing Coffee Products they would not have
`otherwise purchased. As a result of this deception, Defendant has sold thousands, if not
`millions, of Coffee Products to unsuspecting consumers across California through its
`retailers and online sales channels.
`22. Defendant’s advertising claims are false, misleading and deceptive because
`Defendant willfully misrepresents and omits from its labeling of the Coffee Products
`material information to consumers’ purchasing decision—viz. the number of coffee
`servings that each Coffee Product will produce. Defendant, thus, intentionally misleads
`consumers into purchasing its products based on its false advertising of the Coffee Products
`as having characteristics that they, in fact, do not have.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- 8 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00850-L-BLM Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.10 Page 10 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`In making these false, misleading, and deceptive representations and
`23.
`omissions described herein, Defendant knew and intended that consumers would purchase
`the Coffee Products and pay more for them under the false but reasonable belief that each
`would produce more coffee servings than each Coffee Product actually does. The
`marketing of the Coffee Products as producing more coffee servings than they actually do
`demonstrates Defendant’s awareness that the claim about the Coffee Products’ serving
`yield is material to consumers, otherwise Defendant would not so prominently advertise
`how many cups of coffee each Coffee Product cannister produces.
`24. Defendant’s deceptive representations and omissions are material in that a
`reasonable person would attach importance to such information and would be induced to
`act upon such information in making purchasing decisions. Plaintiff and Class Members
`reasonably relied—to their detriment—on Defendant’s misleading representations and
`omissions. Such representations and omissions misled Plaintiff and the Class, and are
`likely to mislead the public, because, as alleged above, reasonable consumers understand
`that if they follow the only brewing instructions on the product, the Coffee Product will
`produce up to its advertised number of servings.
`25. As an immediate, direct, and proximate result of Defendant’s false,
`misleading, and deceptive representations and omissions, Defendant injured Plaintiff and
`the Class Members in that they: (1) paid a sum of money more for a Coffee Product that
`was not what Defendant represented; (2) were deprived of the benefit of the bargain
`because the Coffee Products they purchased were different than what Defendant had
`advertised; and (3) were deprived of the benefit of the bargain because the Coffee Products
`they purchased had less value than what Defendant represented.
`26. Had Defendant not made the false, misleading, and deceptive representations
`and omissions as alleged herein, Plaintiff and the Class Members would not have purchased
`the Coffee Products or would not have paid as much for them. Consequently, Plaintiff and
`the Class Members suffered injury in fact and lost money or property as result of
`Defendant’s wrongful conduct.
`
`- 9 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00850-L-BLM Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.11 Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`CLASS ALLEGATIONS
`V.
`27. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in every preceding
`paragraph as if fully set forth herein.
`28. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
`Class Members pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and seeks
`certification of the following Class against Defendant for violations of California state
`laws:
`All consumers within the State of California who purchased any Folgers
`Coffee Product(s) advertising a number of coffee cups that the product would
`purportedly produce during the applicable statute of limitations and who have
`not received a refund or credit for their purchase(s). Excluded from the Class
`are Defendant’s current or former officers, directors, and employees; counsel
`for Plaintiff and Defendant; and the judicial officer to whom this lawsuit is
`assigned.
`29. Numerosity: The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all
`members is impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the proposed Class
`contains hundreds of thousands of individuals who have been damaged by Defendant’s
`conduct as alleged herein. The precise number of Class Members is unknown to Plaintiff.
`30. Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact: This
`action involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate over any questions
`affecting individual Class Members. These common legal and factual questions include,
`but are not limited to, the following:
`a. Whether Defendant made false and/or misleading statements to the
`Class and the public concerning the cup yield in the Coffee Products;
`b. Whether Defendant omitted material information to the public
`concerning the actual cup yield of the Coffee Products;
`c. Whether Defendant’s packaging for the Coffee Products is misleading
`and deceptive;
`d. Whether Defendant’s advertising for the Coffee Products is misleading
`and deceptive;
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`- 10 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00850-L-BLM Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.12 Page 12 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`e. Whether Defendant has engaged in unfair, fraudulent, or unlawful
`business practices with respect to the advertising, marketing, and sale of the Coffee
`Products;
`f. Whether Defendant’s representations concerning the Coffee Products
`were likely to deceive a reasonable consumer;
`g. Whether Defendant’s omissions concerning the Coffee Products were
`likely to deceive a reasonable consumer;
`h. Whether Defendant represents to consumers that the Coffee Products
`have characteristics, benefits, or qualities that the Coffee Products do not have;
`i. Whether Defendant advertised the Coffee Products with intent to sell
`them not as advertised; and
`j. Whether Defendant engaged in false advertising with respect to the
`Coffee Products.
`31. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class Members
`because, inter alia, all Class Member have been deceived (or were reasonably likely to be
`deceived) in the same way by Defendant’s false and misleading advertising claims about
`the serving yield of its Coffee Products. Plaintiff is advancing the same claims and legal
`theories on behalf of himself and all Class Members.
`32. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class
`Members. Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced in complex consumer class action
`litigation, and Plaintiff intends to prosecute this action vigorously. Plaintiff has no
`antagonistic or adverse interest to those of the Class.
`33. Superiority: The nature of this action and the nature of the laws available to
`Plaintiff and the Class make the use of the class action format a particularly efficient and
`appropriate procedure to afford relief to him and the Class for the wrongs alleged. The
`damages or other financial detriment suffered by individual Class Members is miniscule
`compared to the burden and expense that would be entailed by individual litigation of their
`claims against Defendant. It would thus be virtually impossible for Plaintiff and Class
`
`- 11 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00850-L-BLM Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.13 Page 13 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Members, on an individual basis, to obtain effective redress for the wrongs done to them.
`Absent the class action, Class Members would not likely recover, or would not likely have
`the chance to recover, damages and/or restitution from Defendant, which would continue
`to retain the proceeds of its wrongful conduct. Additionally, injunctive relief for the benefit
`of Class Members and the public would not be possible absent class treatment and
`Defendant’s wrongful conduct would persist unabated.
`VI.
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATION OF UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW (“UCL”)
`CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200, et seq.
`
`34. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in every preceding
`paragraph as if fully set forth herein.
`35. The UCL defines “unfair business competition” to include any “unlawful,
`unfair, or fraudulent” act or practice, as well as any “unfair, deceptive, untrue or
`misleading” advertising. CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200.
`36. Plaintiff has standing to pursue this claim because Plaintiff has suffered
`injury-in-fact and has lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s unlawful, unfair,
`and fraudulent actions. Specifically, Plaintiff purchased the Folgers French Roast Coffee
`Products for his own personal consumption. In doing so, Plaintiff relied upon the false
`representations that the Coffee Products would produce more servings than they actually
`did. Plaintiff spent money in the transaction that he otherwise would not have spent had
`he known the truth about Defendant’s advertising claims.
`“Unfair” Prong
`37. A business act or practice is “unfair” under the UCL if it offends an
`established public policy or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or
`substantially injurious to consumers, and that unfairness is determined by weighing the
`reasons, justifications, and motives of the practice against the gravity of the harm to the
`alleged victims.
`
`- 12 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00850-L-BLM Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.14 Page 14 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`38. Defendant’s conduct constitutes an “unfair” business practice because, as
`alleged, Defendant has engaged, and continues to engage, in a false advertising campaign
`that misleads consumers into believing that the Coffee Products they purchase will yield a
`greater number of servings than each cannister actually contains.
`39. Defendant’s conduct, as alleged above, was not motivated by any legitimate
`business or economic need or rationale, other than to maximize its profits at its customers’
`expense. The harm and adverse impact of Defendant’s conduct on members of the general
`public was neither outweighed nor justified by any legitimate reasons, justifications, or
`motives. Such conduct was and is designed solely to wrongfully extract monies from
`consumers, including Plaintiff, to which Defendant is not entitled. Defendant could have,
`but has not, used alternate means of effecting its legitimate business needs, such as by
`properly disclosing (1) how many servings would result from following the Coffee
`Products’ brewing instructions; (2) that the instructions will produce less than the
`advertised “Makes Up To __ Cups” number of servings, or (3) how to measure and/or brew
`the coffee grounds to derive the “Makes Up To __ Cups” number of servings.
`40. Defendant’s conduct harms the interests of consumers and market
`competition. There is no valid justification for Defendant’s conduct and Defendant’s
`business practices, alleged herein, are immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous,
`unconscionable and/or substantially injurious to Plaintiff and Class Members because
`Defendant’s conduct violates consumers’ reasonable expectations. If the Coffee Products
`had been advertised in a non-misleading fashion, as Defendant could easily have done,
`Plaintiff and other Class Members could have considered other options for purchasing
`coffee grounds.
`“Fraudulent” Prong
`41. A business act or practice is “fraudulent” under the UCL if it is likely to
`deceive members of the consuming public.
`42. Defendant engaged in a fraudulent business practice by knowingly
`representing to consumers that the Coffee Products it sells will produce a greater number
`
`- 13 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00850-L-BLM Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.15 Page 15 of 19
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`of servings than each cannister actually does. Defendant’s practice deceived Plaintiff and
`the Class, who purchased the Coffee Products in reliance on the advertised serving yield,
`and is highly likely to deceive members of the consuming public because, as alleged above,
`the practice violates consumers’ reasonable expectations regarding how many servings
`each Coffee Product will produce. Such practice is devoid of utility and functions only to
`maximize Defendant’s profits at the expense of the consuming public. Any benefit gained
`by Defendant’s practice is far outweighed by the gravity of harm to Plaintiff and the Class,
`who lost money or property by paying for the Coffee Products.
`43. Additionally, Defendant’s fraudulent practice will continue to mislead its
`customers for the simple reason that it is virtually impossible for consumers to know if
`Defendant has stopped misrepresenting the serving yield of its Coffee Products until after
`the purchase is made. At the very least, consumers would have to perform copious
`mathematical calculations in store before purchasing a Coffee Product to determine if the
`“Makes Up To __ Cups” statement was accurate. Accordingly, the risk of harm to Plaintiff,
`the Class, and the public is ongoing.
`“Unlawful” Prong
`44. A business act or practice is “unlawful” under the UCL if it violates any other
`law or regulation.
`45. Defendant’s actions, as alleged herein, constitute violations of the Consumer
`Legal Remedies Act, CAL. CIV. CODE § 1750, et seq. (the “CLRA”). Particularly,
`Defendant has unlawfully marketed and advertised the Coffee Products in violation of CAL.
`CIV. CODE §§ 1770(a)(5) and 1770(a)(9), discussed further below in Plaintiff’s Third Cause
`of Action.
`46. Additionally, Defendant’s actions, as alleged herein, constitute violations of
`the California’s False Advertising Law, CAL. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq., (the
`“FAL”), discussed further below in Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action.
`47. Each of Defendant’s unfair, fraudulent, and unlawful practices enumerated
`above was the direct and proximate cause of financial injury to Plaintiff and the Class.
`
`- 14 -
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:20-cv-00850-L-BLM Document 1 Filed 05/05/20 PageID.16 Page 16 of 19
`
`
`
`Defendant has unjustly benefitted as a result of its wrongful conduct. Plaintiff and Class
`Members are accordingly entitled to have Defendant disgorge profits and restore to
`Plaintiff and Class Members all monies wrongfully obtained by Defendant as a result of
`the conduct as alleged herein.
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`VIOLATION OF FALSE ADVERTISING LAW (“FAL”)
`CAL. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, et seq.
`
`48. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in every preceding
`paragraph as if fully set forth herein.
`49. Plaintiff has standing to pursue this claim because Plaintiff has suffered
`injury-in-fact and has lost money or property as a result of Defendant’s false advertising.
`Specifically, Plaintiff purchased the Folgers French Roast Coffee Products for his own
`personal consumption. In doing so, Plaintiff relied upon the false representations that the
`Coffee Products would produce more servings than they actually did. Plaintiff spent
`money in the transaction that he otherwise would not have spent had he known the truth
`about Defendant’s advertising claims.
`50. Defendant violated CAL. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 by publicly
`disseminating false, misleading, and unsubstantiated advertisements regarding the Coffee
`Products as alleged hereinabove.
`51. Defendant’s false and misleading advertisements were disseminated to
`increase the sales of the Coffee Products.
`52. Defendant knew or should have known its advertisements for the Coffee
`Products were false and/or misleading.
`53. Defendant knew or should have known that con