Blendtec’s Blender Horsepower Claims ‘Grossly Inaccurate,’ Class Action Alleges [UPDATE]
Last Updated on January 10, 2022
Callegari v. Blendtec, Inc.
Filed: April 13, 2018 ◆§ 2:18-cv-00308-EJF
A proposed class action alleges Blendtec's blenders achieve less than 25 percent of their purported 'peak horsepower.'
Case Updates
Update – Lawsuit Dismissed for Plaintiff’s Failure to Plead
The proposed class action detailed on this page was dismissed by United States District Judge Dee Benson.
In a memorandum decision and order issued on November 6, 2018, Judge Benson granted Blendtec’s motion to toss the lawsuit on the grounds that the plaintiff’s claim that the company violated the Utah Consumer Sales Practices Act (UCSPA) was insufficient given that he failed to allege he was “diverted from the product advertised by Blendtec to some other product.” Instead, Judge Benson wrote, the plaintiff stated only that he would not have purchased the product, or would have paid less for it, had he known it came with diminished horsepower.
Generally, the document states, R152-11-43 of the UCSPA prohibits bait-and-switch advertising. The plaintiff, however, did not allege the defendant engaged in bait-and-switch advertising, and claimed only that Blendtec falsely advertised its blenders.
“Plaintiff alleged false advertising, which he believes caused damages to a class of consumers,” Judge Benson wrote. “But the facts alleged by Plaintiff do not constitute the bait and switch advertising tactics prohibited by R152-11-3.”
Moreover, the plaintiff, Judge Benson said, made only “broad assertions” regarding the defendant’s packaging and advertisements, and left out where he bought the blender or where he saw the allegedly misleading statements about its horsepower. At the end of the day, allowing a class action to proceed was not something Judge Benson was prepared to green light:
“The Complaint did not specifically set forth the ‘who, what, when, where and how’ of Mr. Callegari’s purchase, or of any specific blender. Rather, Plaintiff made general statements regarding Defendant’s advertising practices with respect to all of its blenders. Such generalizations are insufficient to satisfy the heightened pleading standards of Rule 9. Accordingly, even assuming that Plaintiff could satisfy the class action pleading requirements of the UCSPA, his UCSPA claim is properly dismissed for failure to satisfy Rule 9(b).”
A proposed class action out of Utah federal court alleges Blendtec has overstated the juice of its blenders, calling the company’s representations of the horsepower for each model “grossly inaccurate.” The lawsuit alleges that in truth, Blendtec’s blenders—which supposedly hit between 3.0 and 3.8 horsepower during operation—achieve less than 25 percent of the “peak horsepower” represented by the company, an alleged 400 percent overstatement.
“Blendtec Blenders do not come close to reaching the represented ‘Peak Horsepower,’ in actual use, and all such claims made in connection with the marketing and sale of its Blenders are incorrect and misleading as to the actual capabilities of these devices,” the lawsuit alleges. “The facts and circumstances known to Blendtec at the time they were developing marketing materials, creating the packaging for the Blenders, and preparing other sales materials put them on notice that the representations were false.”
Before commenting, please review our comment policy.