Article can be found here:
Belgian chocolatier agrees to $15 million settlement over misled consumers allegations
I just want to state my opinion about this topic. The chocolatier, Godiva is an international company. It has Belgian roots, hence the slogan “Belgium 1926”, the year and location of its founding.
The EW felt mislead by the slogan, thinking the chocolate came from Belgium, so she filed a lawsuit. Godiva is prepared to pay a settlement of 15 million USD, which is absolutely too much. I don’t like to call people names, but we cannot let someone’s stupidity and stubbornness be rewarded.
For example, the (Leuvense) beer Stella Artois is also produced in multiple countries, but you can’t tell me it’s not Belgian beer. They taste exactly the same 10000 km away. That’s because they tailor the chemical properties of the water to be the same everywhere.
Even if the product may not be exactly Belgian, what about being inspired by Belgium? You can’t open a chinese restaurant that uses westernised recipes or be a french style bakery selling French baguettes and pastries? The product may not come from there, but the recipes or origins or just what this country is known for are.
But I am not a lawyer, so if anyone is one, what would happen if the consumer could have won if the trial went through (in Belgium).
6 comments
In Belgium, probably not much. Belgium’s law system is pretty boring (like the rest of Europe), so you’d not have any fascinating outcomes in a court of law.
In the USA however, if the consumer would win in actual court, they could get large payouts. There’s a reason why the firm is willing to pay 15 million USD to get rid of this “stupid” threat.
Note that the settlement is actually 1.25 USD per customer since 2015. So it’s not like 1 person sued and got rich. As a customer I’d not even bother signing the documents just for a dollar.
>They taste exactly the same 10000 km away. That’s because they tailor the chemical properties of the water to be the same everywhere.
Is that true?
“Belgian chocolate” is actually a sort of regulated version of chocolate, where a certain minimum percentage of cacao is required: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_chocolate
In this sense, “Belgian chocolate” means something more specific than “Belgian beer” as a quality label, as a Belgian beer can be pretty much anything. A Belgian chocolate is required to be of a higher than average quality, while Belgian beer is not necessarily so.
It’s a little similar to other “DOC” products such as Champagne or Parmesan, except that “Belgian chocolate” is less strict. To be clear: that analogy isn’t perfect, but it’s similar and more so than “Belgian beer” which is not regulated at all.
Imagine you’re buying a bottle of sparkling wine, and it says on the label underneath the name “Champagne, 1928”. But it’s not from Champagne, the original company used to be in Champagne, but the wine is actually produced in California. You can see how that would be (a) confusing and (b) make it seem as if that wine is more qualitative than it might actually be, right? Because actual Champagne is a high quality label. Now, this example cannot happen due to regulations, but imagine if the regulations for DOCs weren’t as strict, it would certainly cause confusion and have the smell of fraud at the least.
> They taste exactly the same 10000 km away. That’s because they tailor the chemical properties of the water to be the same everywhere.
Ah, there seems to be a key difference in your analogy. “Belgian chocolate” requires a minimum of 35% of cocoa. A part of the law suit seems to be that the chocolate sold by Godiva would in fact not fit the requirement to be called “Belgian chocolate” but is in fact only US-quality chocolate. Thus, it does in fact not taste the same and would not be allowed to be called Belgian chocolate:
> The plaintiffs assert that Belgium, the country of origin implied by the claim, is recognized “as producing among the highest quality chocolates in the world,” and that American chocolate is different.
I can’t find much details on this.
In general, the reason they add the name “Belgium” right underneath the logo is obviously because indeed it acts as a quality label for the customer and that it implies the chocolate is Belgium. Else they would not do so, from a branding perspective. So even if you do not agree with it, apparently the company themselves think this is true.
In short, I think:
– The combo of “Belgian chocolate” being a sort-of DOC and the name “Belgium” underneath the brand name would indeed be cause for confusion
– The fact that chocolate is Belgian is a quality label / premium label which can command higher prices in the market ceteris paribus
– Thus indeed I can see how customers would be “defrauded” into paying higher prices than they otherwise would
– The settlement of $1.25 per product (customers need to register to get this) seems fair
As an addendum: Godiva is not the only chocolatier in this situation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_chocolate#Production_and_standards – Thus it t would not surprise me if other chocolate makers sat together with Godiva and decided on this settlement (paying Godiva for settling). If it did go to court, and the US court decided in favour of the plaintiff, it might set a precedent that would be bad for other “Belgian chocolate makers” that are currently also production chocolate outside of Belgium, and not just Godiva. By settling, they’re postponing judgement so no precedent can be made.
> They taste exactly the same 10000 km away.
Yeah no they don’t at all lol. I’ve had Stella Artois in Mexico and it tastes like absolute filth. In Belgium it’s my favourite beer by far…
_Belgium 1926_, wow, I just realized how much they misled me to believe their chocolates where made in 1926. I call my lawyer!
> You can’t open a chinese restaurant that uses westernised recipes
Actually, that’s what they do. They don’t make Chinese food at all.