Bigelow

Jury Awards $2.3 Million in ‘Made in USA’ Label Dispute: Bigelow Tea Faces Legal Repercussions Over Misleading Packaging Claims

by

A recent jury decision in the Banks v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc. case has stirred discussions about national origin marketing claims, as the tea manufacturer was fined $2.3 million. The litigation centered on the validity of Bigelow’s “Manufactured in the USA 100%” labels, which plaintiffs contended were misleading since the raw tea was imported. The company argued that the designation referred only to the blending and packaging processes, which occur in the United States. The court had earlier ruled that the claim was indeed false, leaving the jury to decide on the extent of the damages … Read more

Jury Weighs Verdict as Emails Suggest Bigelow Tea Misled Consumers with ‘Made in USA’ Labels

by

San Francisco, CA — In a recent California federal court case, a lawyer representing a group of tea consumers argued that R.C. Bigelow’s labeling of its products as “Manufactured in the USA 100%” is misleading. The accusation stems from internal company emails suggesting top executives might have either recklessly or intentionally deceived consumers about the origin of their products. During Monday’s closing arguments, these revelations came to light, potentially compromising Bigelow’s credibility. The lawsuit, initiated by tea consumers who felt misled by the labels, has garnered attention due to its implications for product labeling and … Read more

Jury Hears $3.26 Million Overcharge Claim in Bigelow Tea Mislabeling Case

by

Los Angeles, CA — In a significant courtroom development, a federal jury heard testimony on Friday about alleged deceptive practices by tea company R.C. Bigelow. A specialist assessing damages in the case stated that consumers in California were misled by a product label claiming “Manufactured in the USA 100%,” resulting in an overpayment of approximately $3.26 million. The misleading label led to a lawsuit by a class of R.C. Bigelow tea purchasers. The court had previously determined that the label was deceptive, placing responsibility on the company for any ensuing misinformation to consumers. During the … Read more