A US court has tossed out an attempt by Lindt’s lawyers to have a class action suit over the brand’s ‘excellence’ claims thrown out. Lindt is being challenged over ‘excellence’ claims, that its products are, “expertly crafted with the finest ingredients.”
It’s not just a claim. It’s almost become a trademark – the backbone, in fact, of Lind’s longstanding promotional program backing up it’s premium image and, in turn its premium prices…
‘Consumer premium’
The fact is, Lindt isn’t actually a member of the top tier of global chocolatiers. That realm would in-clude such coveted brands as Godiva, Guylian and Ghirardelli. Lindt is, however, among the top tier of what I would call ‘consumer premium’ chocolate makers. On a par with Ferrero and Toblerone.
The truth is, the real top tier of the world’s chocolatiers is occupied by a small coterie of names very few average chocolate lovers have ever heard before. And even fewer could ever hope to afford.
Nevertheless, Lindt has invested millions in advertising touting its quality, heritage and overall ‘ex-cellence’. “Lindt has been enchanting the world with chocolate for more than 175 years,” the official website’s About Us page trumpets. “As a global leader in the premium chocolate industry, the com-pany looks back on a longstanding tradition…”
But the lawsuit, brought in the US, is throwing all kinds of shade at Lindt as details emerge of the evidence it’s supporters are bring forward…
Consumer Reports weighs in
The renowned research organization reported, just last year, that its, “scientists recently measured the amount of heavy metals in 28 dark chocolate bars. They detected cadmium and lead in all of them.”
The levels found in Lind products were called out as ‘astronomically high’: lead in its Excellence Dark Chocolate 85% Cocoa (see photo, top of page), and cadmium in its Excellence Dark Chocolate 70% Cocoa (see photo, above).
Spotlighting Lindt…
The lawsuit doesn’t include any other brands in its claims. But a broad range of Dark Chocolate pro-ducts were tested. And all surpassed Consumer Reports‘ own recommended maximum levels of heavy metals, as well as California’s official ‘safe’ levels.
But Lind’t may have pinned the bull’s eye to its own back with its high-flown claims of ‘excellence’.
The suit specifically accuses the chocolate maker of ‘violating labeling rules in Alabama, California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, and New York and duping people into paying premium pricing for a less than premium product,” Food & Wine reports.
Shot in the foot?
Lind, in fact, may have shot itself in the foot by admitting that the words ‘excellence’ and ‘expertly crafted with the finest ingredients’ – printed on every label – were in fact, just marketing ‘puffery’, which company lawyers defined as, “exaggerated advertising, blustering, and boasting upon which no reasonable buyer would rely.” And, therefore, not actionable.
But if not actionable, an admission, nonetheless, that Lind, itself, doesn’t believe its products are as ‘excellent’ as it says they are.
No wonder the motion by Lindt to have the suit thrown out was, itself, thrown out.
My take
I’ll admit, I wasn’t aware of the subtleties and nuances of the concept of ‘puffery’ before I delved into the Lindt case. But it makes me wonder how many other advertising claims that sound overblown may, in fact, fall into the grey realm of puffery. Or whose lawyers will argue they do.
The ‘puffery’ angle makes this case all the more fascinating. And we’ll let you know the outcome when it’s decided…
~Maggie J.