They both contain alcohol. The one that is labelled "whiskey" contains whiskey, the one that is not labelled "whiskey" doesn't contain whiskey.
Should a rational consumer find this to be deceptive?
Should a rational consumer find this to be deceptive?
this is lexically ambiguous and I'm not going to blame anyone, especially someone buying 99c bottles of fake whiskey at a convenience store, for mis-understanding it and thinking it meant it contains whiskey.
I do think the headline here is disingenuous to say "consumers" are suing. Some class-action-mill law firm is suing.
This seems like yet another class action created by lawyers, purely for the benefit of lawyers where the vast majority of any benefit will go to the attorneys other professionals involved and a token amount will end up going to the consumers being "harmed" here.
For the intoxicant lover, a little bottle of the whisky can provide the warmth they are seeking beyond the cinnamon itself, which a few spoonfuls of ale can not compare to.
Even though you need to be of drinking age to buy either one.
People could end up disappointed when they could have gotten a full-size beer at the convenient store for the same money.
That is not the case whatsoever... They labeled them all as containing whiskey but none of them did. Just whiskey flavorings.
The rational consumer should find this deceptive because it says it has one ingredient while not actually including that ingredient at all.
The flavourings written directly on the label. "Malt beverage with natural whiskey and other flavors and caramel color", some might find that ambiguous but that's grammatically correct syntax for writing a set.
E.g. Red, green, blue and other colours.
Not: Red colour, green colour, blue colour and other colours.