Back in September, we told you about the court case of King’s Hawaiian sweet rolls, whose packaging and advertising says “Est. 1950” and “Hilo, Hawaii” under the brand name suggesting that it was manufactured in Hawaii when in fact it was made in California. (See original story.) Most readers thought there was no case here.
Now fast forward a few months to a similar suit [see complaint] where consumers are claiming that Godiva is misrepresenting their chocolates as being made in Belgium when in fact they are manufactured in Pennsylvania. They cite as evidence that the phrase “Belgium 1926” is depicted under the brand name on every chocolate package, each one says “Belgian chocolate,” and the term is used on signs on their buildings and is included in advertising.
In court, the company made a motion to have the case dismissed. The judge denied most of their request in his ruling, saying…
*MOUSE PRINT:
Courts apply the “reasonable consumer†standard to determine whether a representation is false or deceptive under each of the relevant New York and California consumer-protection statutes.
Godiva also contends that the word “Belgium†is inextricably linked to the year “1926,†and the latter “cures any likelihood of deception,†in its labeling. It argues that for a consumer to be deceived into thinking “Belgium 1926†represents that the products [were made] in Belgium, the consumer must also believe that the products she is purchasing were made almost one-hundred years ago -— a clearly unreasonable belief. This argument, however, is too clever by half.
A consumer could reasonably believe that Godiva was founded in Belgium in 1926, as Godiva contends, and that the representation on its products of this heritage means that its products continue to be manufactured in that location.
With that, the judge allowed the case to move forward.
So what do you think? Do the consumers have a good case this time?
This is a worthless lawsuit and one that should be dismissed. I think product of origin labeling would resolve this and many other similar nuisance legal challenges that merely tie up our courts and enrich lawyers.
The packaging is deliberately worded to mislead consumers. It’s not like ‘french fries’ or ‘russian dressing’ which are clearly generic products. Belgian Chocolates are world renowned for their extraordinary texture and flavor, and Godiva is trying to capitalize on that fame. Godiva could have clearly stated that they were *founded* in Belgium, but nooooo.
The company is obviously hoping to capitalize on the specific issues here. While no one believes that their chocolate was made in 1926, it’s not unreasonable, based on the product labeling, to assume their chocolate was made in Belgium.
I think of Belgium as a type of chocolate, not always from Belgium. And I believe that 1926 was when Godiva was founded. But the two should not be labeled together. I believe that Godiva needs to add where the chocolate was made.
Please ask for these changes, and forget the lawsuit.
I love these chocolate and thought they were Belgium Chocolate. This is deceptive and I hope the consumer win. It is not cheap to purchase these chocolate gems and I as a consumer was willing to pay more thinking that they were imported from Belgium. I might as well purchase a Hershey bar and save some money.
If the only reason you were buying these chocolates was because you thought they were imported than yes you might as well of purchased a Hershey Bar. However, if you were buying these chocolates because you found them superior to others on the shelf then what difference does it make where they are from? You still enjoyed them and you still apparently found them superior to Hershey. So what’s the problem?
Personally my first choice would be Hershey regardless of the point of origin.
Amen!
There is every reason for the “reasonable consumer” to believe that labelling a product “Belgium chocolates” means they were made in Belgium, in the same way that I have a right to believe that my Spanish olive oil came from Spain or that my Columbian coffee actually originated in Columbia. To purport otherwise makes a mockery of origins labelling.
Godiva clearly has the option of writing “Est. Belgium 1926” and “Belgium-Style Chocolates” (or, more properly, “Belgian-Style Chocolates”) if they really meant what they now say they did mean.
Whether the suit will be successful or not, however, will depend on the political philosophy of the judge. I only know how s/he should rule.
JonK,
Agreed absolutely. Plenty of companies have products that were originally designed in other places and now made somewhere else and have no problem using est. or marking their product as “blank-style”.
I absolutely do think they have a case. I thought they were made in Belgium until my friend told me a long time ago, they were made in PA. I had to look it up and she was right. Not to mention, I think they are owned by an Indian company. Definately not Belgium. So I was duped, if I could be duped then any consumer can be duped into believing your buying european chocolate.
Godiva Chocolatier is a Belgian chocolate maker which is jointly owned by Turkish conglomerate Yıldız Holding and South Korean equity company MBK Partners. Founded in 1926, it was purchased by the Turkish Yıldız Holding in November 2007; then MBK Partners bought a stake in 2019.
So Jenn, Do you want all of that on the label? Would it really make a difference in the taste?
Campbells actually owned Godiva, but then sold it in 2007. One company that was interested in buying Godiva was Hershey, but they lost out.
A Turkish company, Yildiz, bought Godiva instead.
If I were to order Irish stew in a restaurant, could I assume that the stew was made and imported from Ireland? No, it’s stew made the style the Irish would probably make it. In this case I always assumed the candy was made in the Belgian style. I never assumed it was made in Belgium.
Amen, again!
I recently acquired a Godiva Signature Roasted Almond Dark Chocolate. It is a pack of eight small bars.
All this confusion about whether the typical consumer is being unknowingly buying fake chocolate.
On the label, it clearly states there are a product of Turkey. Now what?
Fooled me!
Shame on them.
Soooo, Granny is in trouble this Christmas with her German chocolate cake! Tsk, tsk, tsk.
I always assumed the “Belgium†referred to the recipe used to make the chocolates, IOW, the ingredients are Belgium. Doesn’t the package state where they are made? I think it’s a stupid lawsuit.
Of course Godiva chocolates come from Belgium – along with the Belgian blocks that line my driveway. Now that I’ve straightened that out, I think I’ll go have a Swiss cheese sandwich.
If you don’t see “Product of Belgium” (or whatever country) written on the product box (often in small print), always assume it was made somewhere else. I don’t see a valid lawsuit here.
Another frivolous lawsuit in a country with way too many greed lawyers,abetting greedy Americans.