Michael Kaufmann and Debbie Thayer v. Ware

Background

Plaintiffs Michael Kaufmann, a New York citizen, and Debbie Thayer, a California citizen, filed a class action lawsuit against Nordic Ware, Inc., a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of business in Minnesota. The plaintiffs allege that Nordic Ware's labeling of its aluminum bakeware as 'Made in the USA,' 'Made in America,' or 'American Made' is deceptive because the raw material for aluminum — bauxite — is mined overseas, and all transformation of bauxite into alumina and then into aluminum occurred in Canada. Plaintiffs allege that Nordic Ware's CEO admitted the primary component is aluminum sourced as 5,000-pound coils imported from Canada.

Kaufmann purchased sheet pans in November 2023, spending $43.51 on four pans. Thayer purchased a bundt pan and two 5-cup bundt pans in late 2024 (the complaint contains a typographical error as to one purchase date), spending $76.19 total. Both claim they relied on the made-in-America representations when purchasing and paid a price premium they would not have paid had they known the truth. The complaint alleges Nordic Ware found that consumers are willing to pay approximately a 10% premium for American-made products.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class (all U.S. purchasers of Products with unqualified USA representations within applicable statutes of limitations), a multistate breach-of-warranty subclass (purchasers in 25 listed states), a New York subclass (Kaufmann), and a California subclass (Thayer).

Claims Asserted

The Amended Complaint asserts ten causes of action: - Counts I and II: Violations of the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (MCFA) and Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act (MFSAA), brought on behalf of the nationwide class. - Counts III and IV: Violations of New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, brought on behalf of the New York subclass. - Counts V, VI, and VII: Violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), brought on behalf of the California subclass. - Count VIII: Breach of express warranty, brought on behalf of the nationwide class and all subclasses. - Count IX: Unjust enrichment, brought on behalf of the California subclass. - Count X: Common-law fraud, brought on behalf of the nationwide class, the New York subclass, and the California subclass.

Plaintiffs seek damages, declaratory relief, and class certification. Nordic Ware moved to dismiss all claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) and Rule 12(b)(6) (failure to state a claim).

Jurisdictional Analysis: Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)

CAFA grants federal court jurisdiction over class actions where (1) the class has more than 100 members, (2) the parties are minimally diverse, and (3) the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. Nordic Ware argued the $5 million threshold was not plausibly alleged because plaintiffs did not specify how many class members exist.

The court rejected this argument. Drawing on the complaint's allegations that Nordic Ware sold over 72 million bundt pans in 2019 (representing 20% of its business) and 720 million cookie sheets, and that Nordic Ware is 'one of the leading market players in the 3.84 billion dollar bakeware industry,' the court found it plausible that sales within the applicable limitations periods, at even a modest $2-per-item price premium (based on the alleged 10% premium), would easily exceed $5 million. The court also noted that the high sales volume made it plausible that the class exceeds 100 members. The court conducted a facial attack analysis — accepting all of plaintiffs' jurisdictional allegations as true — and found subject-matter jurisdiction adequately alleged.

Minnesota Claims (Counts I and II)

Constitutional Application of Minnesota Law to Out-of-State Plaintiffs

Nordic Ware argued that New York and California citizens lack standing to bring claims under Minnesota consumer protection statutes. The court clarified that this is not an Article III standing question (Article III of the U.S. Constitution sets minimum requirements for federal court jurisdiction, including that a plaintiff have suffered a concrete injury); rather, it is a question of whether Minnesota law may constitutionally be applied and whether out-of-state plaintiffs may recover under it.

The court found the constitutional question satisfied: Nordic Ware is incorporated and operates in Minnesota, and manufactures, labels, advertises, markets, and sells its bakeware 'all directed from Minnesota.' This gave Nordic Ware reason to expect Minnesota law would govern its conduct.

On the extraterritoriality question — whether statutes lacking express language about out-of-state application can cover injuries suffered in other states — the court acknowledged split authority within the district. The court sided with cases holding that the MCFA and MFSAA govern conduct occurring in Minnesota, and that out-of-state consumers can bring claims when the misleading conduct emanated from Minnesota. The complaint alleges Nordic Ware's labeling and advertising decisions were 'all directed from Minnesota,' which the court found sufficient at the pleading stage.

Merits of MCFA Claims

The court found the 'Made in USA' representations are not literally false — they are ambiguous, because 'make' could refer to the origin of components or to the final assembly. It cited prior authority, including a ruling by Judge Joan N. Ericksen in this district in Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. ICM Controls Corp., finding that FTC guidance recognizes the context-specific nature of such claims. The court declined to find the FTC's Labeling Rule (16 C.F.R. § 323.2) or the FTC's non-binding guidance document controlling.

However, the court found the representations plausibly misleading to a large segment of consumers. Applying a reasonable-consumer standard, the court found it plausible that a reasonable consumer would interpret 'Made in USA' to include the source of the bauxite and aluminum refining. Injury (paying a price premium), causation (relying on the representations), and Rule 9(b) particularity (who, what, when, where, how) were all found to be adequately alleged.

Merits of MFSAA Claims

The MFSAA prohibits publishing advertisements in Minnesota that are untrue, deceptive, or misleading. The court found the allegations sufficient: the representations appeared on and next to products, were plausibly material, and were plausibly misleading. The court also found that plaintiffs adequately alleged a public benefit — required for claims under Minnesota's Private Attorney General Statute (Minn. Stat. § 8.31) — because Nordic Ware sells hundreds of millions of products annually and the misrepresentations appeared on many different items and were directed at the public at large. While some factors (such as plaintiffs seeking damages rather than injunctive relief, and Nordic Ware's partial revision of its online marketing in March 2025) weighed against a public benefit, the court found the effect on the public at large dispositive.

New York Claims (Counts III and IV)

New York General Business Law § 349 prohibits deceptive acts or practices in business conducted in New York; § 350 prohibits false advertising in New York. Both require a showing that the defendant's conduct would materially mislead a reasonable consumer. Section 350 also requires pleading reliance.

Nordic Ware argued Kaufmann failed to plausibly allege a material misrepresentation and that he actually paid a higher price based on the label. The court found otherwise: for the same reasons stated in the Minnesota analysis, the representations were plausibly misleading, and Kaufmann adequately alleged he paid a price premium in reliance on the representations. Nordic Ware's argument that he could not show a comparable fully American-sourced product was available at any price was rejected as beside the point.

Nordic Ware also argued that many allegations were made only 'on information and belief,' which generally does not satisfy the heightened Rule 9(b) pleading standard for fraud. The court found this argument based on a misreading of the complaint: only the estimate of class members was specifically pleaded on information and belief, and that allegation goes to class certification requirements, not the elements of the New York statutory claims. The remaining allegations were found to be sufficiently specific.

California Claims (Counts V, VI, VII, and IX)

Safe Harbor Doctrine

Nordic Ware's primary argument against the California claims was California's safe harbor doctrine, under which courts may not use general consumer protection laws to override a legislative determination that certain conduct is permissible.

California Business and Professions Code § 17533.7 (the 'Made-in-the-USA Statute') prohibits 'Made in USA' labeling if any article, unit, or part has been 'entirely or substantially made, manufactured, or produced outside of the United States,' with exceptions where foreign-sourced parts constitute not more than 5% (§ 17533.7(b)) or not more than 10% (§ 17533.7(c)) of the final wholesale value, the latter exception also requiring proof that the manufacturer could not obtain the part domestically.

At least one California court has held that 'made, manufactured, or produced' refers to transforming raw materials into new forms, meaning using foreign raw materials alone would not violate the statute. The court noted that if plaintiffs had alleged merely that bauxite was sourced internationally, that prior ruling (Benson v. Kwikset Corp.) would have barred the claims.

Here, however, plaintiffs alleged that the bauxite was not merely sourced overseas, but that all transformation of bauxite into alumina and alumina into aluminum occurred in Canada — meaning the aluminum itself was 'made' in Canada. They also alleged that aluminum is the 'primary' and 'fundamental' component, making it plausible that foreign-sourced aluminum constitutes more than 10% of the final wholesale value. Unlike in the analogous case of Hood v. Handi-Foil Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2024), where the plaintiff offered no facts about cost, price, manufacturing process, source, or amount of bauxite, plaintiffs here alleged facts about prices paid and Nordic Ware's manufacturing process. The court found the California claims are not barred by the safe harbor doctrine.

CLRA, FAL, UCL, and Unjust Enrichment

The CLRA prohibits deceptive representations of geographic origin. The court found Thayer plausibly alleged she overpaid in reliance on the representations, which is sufficient to state a CLRA claim.

The FAL prohibits untrue or misleading statements in advertising, evaluated under a reasonable-consumer standard. For the reasons already explained, the court found the representations plausibly misleading.

The UCL prohibits unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices, including acts prohibited under the FAL. Because the FAL claim survived, the UCL claim survived as well. The court also found Thayer adequately alleged she lacked an adequate remedy at law (a prerequisite for equitable restitution under the UCL), as required by recent precedent. The unjust enrichment claim — analyzed as a request for equitable restitution under California law, since California does not recognize a separate cause of action labeled 'unjust enrichment' — survived for the same reason.

Breach of Express Warranty (Count VIII)

Breach of express warranty was brought on behalf of the nationwide class and all subclasses. The parties agreed that each putative class member's home state law would govern these claims. Nordic Ware made two arguments for dismissal:

First, it argued plaintiffs lack standing to assert claims under laws of states where they do not reside and suffered no injury. The court rejected this: Kaufmann and Thayer are bringing claims only under Minnesota law and their respective home state laws, not under Alaska or Wyoming law; the other states are relevant only to absent class members.

Second, Nordic Ware argued that some states require pre-suit notice to the manufacturer and that each class member must satisfy this requirement. The court rejected this as premature: the authority Nordic Ware cited addressed this issue at the class certification stage (specifically, the Rule 23(b)(3) predominance requirement), not as a basis to dismiss the named plaintiffs' claims at the pleading stage.

Common-Law Fraud (Count X)

The parties agreed that Minnesota fraud law applies, though the court noted this was 'questionable.' Under Minnesota law, fraud requires: (1) a false representation of a material fact; (2) made with knowledge of falsity or without knowing whether it was true or false; (3) with intent to induce reliance; (4) causing reliance; and (5) resulting in pecuniary (monetary) damage.

Nordic Ware argued plaintiffs failed to adequately plead reliance, damages, and scienter (knowledge of wrongdoing). The court found reliance and damages adequately pled for the same reasons previously discussed. On scienter, the court found it plausible that Nordic Ware acted with the required intent: the complaint alleged that Nordic Ware knows consumers pay a 10% premium for American-made products, that Nordic Ware 'caters to' those consumers, and that it 'carefully designed' its labels and packaging to 'perpetuate the false notion' that the products are made in the USA.

Disposition

The court denied Nordic Ware's motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint in its entirety. All ten counts will proceed.