Bigelow Black Tea Products

September 2016: The named plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the August 2016 order.

August 2016: A federal judge granted Bigelow’s motion for summary judgment, concluding that the named plaintiff did not provide evidence that a reasonable consumer is likely to be misled by the company’s statements, did not present evidence supporting a claim for damages, and did not establish standing for injunctive relief. To read the full decision, click here.

March 2016: A federal judge did not certify the class finding that the named plaintiff failed to present an appropriate way to measure damages and failed to demonstrate standing to seek injunctive relief.

July 2014: A federal judge dismissed some of the class-action claims originally filed against Bigelow in 2013 for allegedly misbranding tea products. The remaining claims allege that the company unlawfully labels its black tea products – including English Breakfast Tea, Darjeeling Tea, Earl Grey Tea, and Caramel Chai Black Tea – as “deliver[ing] healthful antioxidants” without meeting certain regulatory requirements. To read the full decision and learn more about the dismissed and continuing claims, click here. (Victor et al v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-02976, N. D. CA.).

For more information about other class-action lawsuits regarding the advertising of tea and TINA.org’s coverage of the issue, click here.

For more information about other class-action lawsuits regarding antioxidants and TINA.org’s coverage of the issue, click here.