Jury Rules Against Bigelow in “Made in USA” Tea Lawsuit
Table of Contents
Case Background
Kimberly Banks and Carol Cantwell brought a class action against R.C. Bigelow, Inc., a major U.S. tea company. They claimed Bigelow misled customers by advertising certain tea products as “Manufactured in the USA” and “America’s Classic.” The Plaintiffs said the packaging created the impression the teas were entirely made in the United States, while in reality, all tea leaves came from foreign countries such as Sri Lanka and India.
Both women purchased several Bigelow tea varieties at California retail stores between December 2019 and April 2020. They stated that they relied on the “Made in USA” claims and would have paid less or not purchased at all if they had known the truth. The lawsuit sought damages for themselves and a class of similarly affected California consumers.
Cause
The Plaintiffs alleged that Bigelow’s packaging and marketing violated multiple California consumer protection statutes. They said Bigelow intentionally used misleading “Manufactured in the USA” and “America’s Classic” labels to tap into consumer preference for domestic products.
The complaint listed causes of action for false advertising, unfair competition, violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, breach of express and implied warranty, intentional and negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
Injury
Banks and Cantwell claimed they suffered economic injury. They believed they were buying U.S.-manufactured products but instead received teas sourced entirely from foreign-grown leaves. They said the deception caused them to overpay for products worth less than represented.
The class alleged the same type of harm spending money on a product under false impressions about its origin.
Damages
The Plaintiffs sought restitution for the difference in value between what they paid and what the teas were actually worth. They also asked for statutory damages under California law, punitive damages for intentional misconduct, and injunctive relief to stop Bigelow from using the disputed labels.
They claimed the total value of the case exceeded $5 million when aggregated for all class members.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Plaintiffs’ Position
Banks and Cantwell argued that Bigelow’s labels were not just vague slogans but specific factual claims “Manufactured in the USA” meant the tea leaves and processing should have been domestic. They pointed out that Bigelow owns the Charleston Tea Plantation, the only large-scale tea farm in the U.S., yet none of the teas at issue used its leaves.
They presented evidence from Bigelow’s own website and videos showing company representatives admitting that the tea for its black and green blends came entirely from Sri Lanka and India. They argued this confirmed Bigelow knew the “Made in USA” claims were false.
Defense’s Position
Bigelow denied misleading consumers. It argued that the labels referred to the blending, packaging, and company ownership activities that took place in the U.S. not to the origin of the raw tea leaves. The company maintained that “Manufactured in the USA” did not require 100% domestic ingredients, as long as substantial processing occurred domestically.
Bigelow also claimed that its statements were truthful under federal labeling standards and that reasonable consumers would not interpret them as a guarantee that all ingredients were U.S.-grown.
Legal Representation
Plaintiffs: Kimberly Banks | Carol Cantwell
· Counsel for Plaintiffs: Todd M. Schneider | Jason H. Kim | Aubry Wand | Peter B. Schneider
· Experts for Plaintiffs: Colin Weir | J. Michael Dennis | Cory Carter
Defendant: R.C. Bigelow Inc.
· Counsel for Defendant: Timothy K. Branson | Joni B. Flaherty | Patrick J. Mulkern | Thomas Robert Watson
Claims
Violation of California Business & Professions Code §17533.7
This state law prohibits selling products labeled as “Made in USA” if foreign materials are included. Plaintiffs said Bigelow violated this by using 100% foreign tea leaves while labeling the teas as U.S.-manufactured.
False Advertising & Unfair Competition
The Plaintiffs alleged Bigelow’s packaging misled reasonable consumers and gave the company an unfair market advantage over brands that did not use such claims.
Breach of Express and Implied Warranty
They argued that “Manufactured in the USA” was part of the product’s express warranty, which Bigelow breached when it sold teas made with foreign leaves.
Misrepresentation
Both intentional and negligent misrepresentation claims were based on the theory that Bigelow knowingly or carelessly made false statements to increase sales.
Defense Arguments
Bigelow maintained that its manufacturing statements referred to the final assembly and packaging location, which was its U.S. facility. It claimed consumers could not reasonably assume that raw agricultural ingredients were also U.S.-grown.
It also argued that any ambiguity in labeling should not be considered deceptive if there was no intent to mislead and the overall product information was accurate.
Jury Verdict
After reviewing testimony, evidence from both sides, and the competing interpretations of the “Made in USA” claim, the jury sided with the Plaintiffs on key counts.
The jury found that Bigelow’s “Manufactured in the USA” label was likely to deceive reasonable consumers under California law. It determined that the label created a false impression about the origin of the tea leaves and that this misrepresentation was material to purchasing decisions.
The jury awarded monetary damages to the named Plaintiffs and the certified class, with amounts to be distributed according to the court-approved claims process. It also ordered injunctive relief requiring Bigelow to modify its labels to clarify the foreign origin of its tea leaves.
Court documents are available upon request at jurimatic@exlitem.com