> malt beverage with natural whisky & other flavors and carmel color
this is lexically ambiguous and I'm not going to blame anyone, especially someone buying 99c bottles of fake whiskey at a convenience store, for mis-understanding it and thinking it meant it contains whiskey.
I do think the headline here is disingenuous to say "consumers" are suing. Some class-action-mill law firm is suing.
This seems like yet another class action created by lawyers, purely for the benefit of lawyers where the vast majority of any benefit will go to the attorneys other professionals involved and a token amount will end up going to the consumers being "harmed" here.
It is deceptive in its own way to have such a small amount of low-alcohol malt be tinted, spiced and packaged in the same kind of bottle with the same logo as the full-strength whisky original. Only the fine print is different and not everybody reads very well either.
For the intoxicant lover, a little bottle of the whisky can provide the warmth they are seeking beyond the cinnamon itself, which a few spoonfuls of ale can not compare to.
Even though you need to be of drinking age to buy either one.
People could end up disappointed when they could have gotten a full-size beer at the convenient store for the same money.
Not to mention, the full sized version of the product is "cinammon whiskey" and it's highly unusual that their tiny bottled version doesn't have any whiskey at all.
I did read the article. Did you? Are you upset that my opinion doesn't agree with the tone of the article? It doesn't define my opinion on the matter. Actually looking at the bottles did.
The flavourings written directly on the label. "Malt beverage with natural whiskey and other flavors and caramel color", some might find that ambiguous but that's grammatically correct syntax for writing a set.
E.g. Red, green, blue and other colours.
Not: Red colour, green colour, blue colour and other colours.
Do they have a tiny bit, kind of like how you'd get carded for ODoul's at a self checkout in... my state... despite not having barely any uh "active ingredient"?
this is lexically ambiguous and I'm not going to blame anyone, especially someone buying 99c bottles of fake whiskey at a convenience store, for mis-understanding it and thinking it meant it contains whiskey.
I do think the headline here is disingenuous to say "consumers" are suing. Some class-action-mill law firm is suing.
This seems like yet another class action created by lawyers, purely for the benefit of lawyers where the vast majority of any benefit will go to the attorneys other professionals involved and a token amount will end up going to the consumers being "harmed" here.