Millercoors, LLC v. Anheuser-Busch Cos.
385 F. Supp. 3d 730 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An advertisement that is literally true can still be misleading under the Lanham Act if it implies a falsehood. However, a literally true statement that is merely susceptible to misunderstanding by some consumers, without more, is not actionable as false advertising.
Facts:
- MillerCoors, LLC brews its Miller Lite and Coors Light beers using corn syrup as a fermentation aid, while Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC uses rice to brew its Bud Light beer.
- The corn syrup used by MillerCoors is consumed during the fermentation process and is not present in the final, packaged beer product.
- There is no meaningful health or safety difference between using rice or corn syrup in the brewing process of the resulting beers.
- On February 3, 2019, during Super Bowl LIII, Anheuser-Busch launched a nationwide advertising campaign for Bud Light centered on MillerCoors' use of corn syrup.
- The campaign included television commercials stating that Miller Lite and Coors Light are 'made with' or 'brewed with' corn syrup.
- The campaign also included billboards stating that Bud Light has '100% less corn syrup' than its competitors.
- A later commercial featured the 'Bud Light King' challenging MillerCoors to list ingredients, stating, 'People want to know what ingredients are in their beer.'
- An Anheuser-Busch marketing executive acknowledged that focus groups revealed consumers do not differentiate between corn syrup and high-fructose corn syrup, and that this was a 'major triggering point' in purchasing decisions.
Procedural Posture:
- MillerCoors, LLC filed a lawsuit against Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
- The lawsuit alleged false advertising under the Lanham Act.
- MillerCoors moved for a preliminary injunction to halt Anheuser-Busch's advertising campaign pending the outcome of the lawsuit.
- The district court considered the briefs and held oral argument on the motion for preliminary injunction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Anheuser-Busch's advertising campaign, which highlights MillerCoors' use of corn syrup in its brewing process, constitute false or misleading advertising under the Lanham Act sufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction?
Opinions:
Majority - Conley, District Judge
Yes, in part. Certain advertisements in Anheuser-Busch's campaign are misleading under the Lanham Act and warrant a preliminary injunction, while others that are literally true and not sufficiently misleading do not. The Lanham Act prohibits both literally false statements and those that are literally true but misleading. Statements that Miller Lite and Coors Light are 'brewed with' or 'made with' corn syrup are literally true. Citing Seventh Circuit precedent, the court found that a statement that is merely 'susceptible to misunderstanding' is not actionable. However, advertisements stating Bud Light has '100% less corn syrup' or implying corn syrup is an ingredient 'in' the final product cross the line into being misleading because they falsely imply that corn syrup is present in the finished MillerCoors beers. While there was strong evidence that Anheuser-Busch intended to exploit consumer confusion, the court declined to rely solely on intent to enjoin the 'brewed with' ads, noting the Seventh Circuit has not adopted a rule creating a presumption of deception from intent alone. The court granted a limited injunction against the specific misleading statements because MillerCoors demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm to its reputation, and that the public interest favored the injunction.
Analysis:
This decision provides a clear application of the distinction between literally true but 'misleading' advertising versus statements that are merely 'susceptible to misunderstanding.' It establishes that context and framing are critical; a competitor can state a true fact about a rival's process (e.g., 'brewed with corn syrup'), but cannot phrase it in a way that creates a false implication about the final product (e.g., '100% less corn syrup'). The case underscores the high evidentiary bar for enjoining literally true comparative advertising, requiring plaintiffs to show that specific language crosses the line to imply a falsehood. It also highlights judicial restraint in adopting new legal presumptions, such as one based on intent to deceive, without clear guidance from a higher court.
