A federal appeals court has decertified a class-action lawsuit against Folgers Coffee, handing a significant win to the J.M. Smucker Company in a battle over exactly how many cups of coffee consumers can squeeze out of a canister.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled Wednesday that a lawsuit brought by Missouri resident Mark Smith cannot proceed as a class action, overturning a lower court’s decision. The three-judge panel found that individual coffee-drinking habits vary too widely to lump all consumers into a single group.
At the heart of the dispute is the label on Folgers canisters, specifically the claim that a 30.5-ounce container “[m]akes up to 240 6 fl oz cups.”
READ: Claim Denied: Federal Court Shuts Down HPV Vaccine Injury Lawsuit After Evidence Falls Short
Smith alleged that this math only works if consumers use the “Pot Method”—brewing in bulk using fewer grounds per cup. If a customer follows the “Single-Serving Method” printed on the same label, Smith claimed they would only get about 70 percent of the promised yield. He argued this amounted to a deceptive practice under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.
However, the Eighth Circuit panel, led by Circuit Judge Morris S. Arnold, dismantled the idea that every Folgers buyer was equally victimized.
“The conclusion seems ineluctable that a significant proportion of the proposed class did not read those representations or, if they did, did not care about them one way or the other,” Arnold wrote.
The court noted that coffee is a deeply personal beverage. Some drinkers prefer a strong brew and use more grounds knowingly, while others might prefer a weaker cup. The judges pointed to testimony from other plaintiffs in related suits who admitted the label claims didn’t influence their shopping. One plaintiff, when asked why she kept buying the product after suing, simply replied, “I like my coffee.”
READ: Appeals Court Delivers Million-Dollar Blow To Trump In Hillary Clinton Conspiracy Suit
Smith’s legal team attempted to argue a “price-premium” theory—essentially claiming that even if a specific customer wasn’t tricked, the alleged deception artificially inflated the market price of the coffee, injuring everyone who bought it.
The court rejected this theory, ruling that customers who weren’t deceived shouldn’t be allowed to “piggyback” on the potential injuries of those who were.
“Surely someone with full knowledge of the facts and a willingness to make the purchase anyway cannot have suffered an ascertainable loss,” the court stated.
The case has been remanded to the district court for further proceedings, but without the weight of a certified class action behind it.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
