Parrot Bay Class Action Says ‘Malt Beverage’ Mini Bottles Are Mislabeled

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action alleges Sazerac Company’s marketing of mini bottles of Parrot Bay “malt beverage” is deceptive since it is virtually identical to the branding of the company’s well-known, higher-alcohol-by-volume Parrot Bay rum.

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

The 19-page lawsuit says that although the miniature bottle’s front label uses the same logo, parrot and tropical imagery and looks altogether identical to the standard-size Parrot Bay rum bottle, the product is “decidedly” not rum. Instead, Parrot Bay mini bottles contain a malt-based beverage lower in proof and alcohol by volume (ABV) than rum, the filing states.

The suit argues that the undeniable similarities in the labels of the different sizes of Parrot Bay liquor lead consumers to believe that the malt beverage contains rum, especially because it takes careful inspection of the fine print at the bottom to notice the omission of the word “rum” from the mini bottle label.

Compared to genuine Parrot Bay rum, which is typically 42 proof, or 21 percent ABV, the malt beverage at issue is only 33 proof, or 16.5 percent ABV, the complaint explains. The filing contends that bottling a malt-based product in a “mini” variety is particularly misleading since consumers expect the small bottle to contain strong, high-proof distilled spirits of the same variety found in regular-sized bottles.

Sazerac purportedly has a history of selling “pseudo-liquors,” the lawsuit relays, as in recent years the company’s malt beverage products have begun to pop up in convenience stores where liquor is not sold.

The case charges that the spirits manufacturer, which owns popular liquor brands such as Fireball whisky, Southern Comfort whiskey, Wheatley vodka and Romana Sambuca, “use[s] its platform and well-known brands to create ‘dupes’ of its products, meant to lure the consumer into buying a product they believed was the genuine item—when really, it is a clever fake.”

According to the suit, the plaintiff has purchased Parrot Bay malt products in the last few years and, given the recognizable brand and label, reasonably expected the bottles to contain rum. The woman would not have paid as much for the product, or bought it at all, had she known it was, in fact, a malt-based beverage that contained no actual rum, the case claims.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone residing in New York who purchased a Parrot Bay malt beverage within the applicable statute of limitations period.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.