Michael Kaufmann and Debbie Thayer v. Ware
Michael Kaufmann and Debbie Thayer, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Nordic Ware, Inc.
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:25-cv-01379
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 32
In Kaufmann v. Nordic Ware, Inc., Judge Tostrud denied Nordic Ware's motion to dismiss a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that the company's 'Made in the USA' labels on aluminum bakeware are deceptive because the aluminum's raw material—bauxite—is mined and processed overseas.
Consumers who purchased Nordic Ware aluminum bakeware labeled 'Made in the USA' or equivalent; Nordic Ware, Inc. as defendant; other companies that sell consumer products with 'Made in USA' labeling where raw materials are sourced or processed overseas may also be affected by the court's analysis.
What happened
In Kaufmann v. Nordic Ware, Inc., two consumers—Michael Kaufmann of New York and Debbie Thayer of California—sued Nordic Ware, a Minnesota company, on behalf of themselves and a proposed nationwide class of buyers, claiming that Nordic Ware's 'Made in the USA,' 'Made in America,' and 'American Made' labels on its aluminum bakeware are deceptive. The plaintiffs allege that virtually all of the aluminum used to make the products comes from Canada, where bauxite mined outside the United States is refined into aluminum coils before being shipped to Nordic Ware's Minnesota facilities and shaped into finished bakeware. The plaintiffs say they paid a price premium—roughly 10 percent—because of those labels, and they would have paid less or not bought the products at all had they known the truth about the aluminum's origins.
Nordic Ware moved to dismiss the lawsuit on two grounds: (1) that the federal court lacked authority to hear the case because the plaintiffs had not adequately shown the total damages across all class members exceeded $5 million, as required by the Class Action Fairness Act (a federal law that allows large consumer class actions to be heard in federal rather than state court); and (2) that the plaintiffs' claims were legally insufficient across all ten counts, including claims under Minnesota, New York, and California consumer protection statutes and common-law claims for breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and fraud. Nordic Ware also argued, among other things, that out-of-state plaintiffs could not sue under Minnesota consumer protection laws, that California's 'safe harbor' doctrine (which bars certain lawsuits when a legislature has already addressed the conduct) blocked the California claims, and that the 'Made in USA' label is too ambiguous to be literally false.
Judge Tostrud denied Nordic Ware's motion to dismiss in its entirety, allowing all ten counts to proceed. The court found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the total class-wide damages exceed $5 million based on Nordic Ware's massive sales volume. On the merits, the court held that out-of-state plaintiffs can sue under Minnesota's consumer protection laws when the allegedly deceptive conduct—labeling, advertising, and marketing decisions—originated from Nordic Ware's Minnesota headquarters. The court further held that the California 'safe harbor' doctrine does not block the California claims because the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the foreign-sourced aluminum constitutes more than 10 percent of the products' wholesale value, placing the conduct outside the statute's exceptions. The court found that while 'Made in USA' is too ambiguous to be literally false, it is plausibly misleading to reasonable consumers who could interpret it to mean the aluminum's raw materials were also American in origin, and that all other elements of the various claims were adequately pleaded.
The detailed version
CASE: Kaufmann v. Nordic Ware, Inc., No. 25-cv-1379 (ECT/DLM), U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. JUDGE: Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge. DATE: December 29, 2025.
BACKGROUND AND PARTIES: Plaintiff Michael Kaufmann (a New York citizen) purchased Nordic Ware sheet pans in November 2023 for $43.51. Plaintiff Debbie Thayer (a California citizen) purchased Nordic Ware bundt pans in approximately September 2024 and December 2024 for a total of $76.19. Both plaintiffs allege they relied on Nordic Ware's 'Made in the USA,' 'Made in America,' or 'American Made' representations when purchasing the products and paid a price premium as a result. Defendant Nordic Ware, Inc. is incorporated in Minnesota with its principal place of business there. The plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class and three subclasses: a multistate breach-of-warranty subclass, a New York subclass, and a California subclass.
PLAINTIFFS' CORE ALLEGATION: The complaint alleges that virtually all aluminum and bauxite used to make Nordic Ware's aluminum bakeware is sourced outside the United States—bauxite is mined internationally (mainly in Australia, Guinea, India, Brazil, and Jamaica), transformed into alumina and then aluminum in Canada, and shipped to the U.S. in 5,000-pound coils before being manufactured into finished products. No U.S.-mined bauxite has been used for aluminum production since approximately 1981. Nordic Ware's CEO allegedly admitted that the primary component of the products is aluminum imported from Canada. Plaintiffs allege consumers pay approximately a 10% premium for American-made goods and that they paid premiums of $2.15 to $4.02 per item.
TEN COUNTS: - Counts I & II: Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (MCFA) and Minnesota False Statement in Advertising Act (MFSAA), on behalf of the nationwide class. - Counts III & IV: New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, on behalf of the New York subclass. - Counts V, VI & VII: California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL), on behalf of the California subclass. - Count VIII: Breach of express warranty (common law), on behalf of the nationwide class and all subclasses. - Count IX: Unjust enrichment (California law/equitable restitution), on behalf of the California subclass. - Count X: Common-law fraud, on behalf of the nationwide class, New York subclass, and California subclass.
NORDIC WARE'S MOTION TO DISMISS — SUBJECT-MATTER JURISDICTION (Rule 12(b)(1)): Nordic Ware argued the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that the Class Action Fairness Act's (CAFA) $5 million amount-in-controversy threshold was met, because the complaint did not specify how many class members there are. The court rejected this, finding that Nordic Ware's scale of operations—selling more than 72 million bundt pans and 720 million cookie sheets in 2019 alone, with sales increasing roughly 400% in 2020—made it plausible, even conservatively, that aggregate price-premium damages (at approximately $2 per item) far exceed $5 million. The court also inferred that class membership easily exceeds the 100-member CAFA minimum.
NORDIC WARE'S MOTION TO DISMISS — FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM (Rule 12(b)(6)):
1. Minnesota Claims (Counts I & II): Nordic Ware argued that out-of-state plaintiffs (from New York and California) lack standing to sue under Minnesota consumer protection statutes. The court clarified this is not truly an Article III standing (constitutional standing) issue but a question of whether Minnesota law can constitutionally apply and whether the statutes cover the conduct at issue. The court held both questions are resolved in the plaintiffs' favor: Nordic Ware manufactures, labels, and directs its marketing from Minnesota, establishing the necessary contacts; and the MCFA and MFSAA govern conduct occurring in Minnesota, which the plaintiffs plausibly alleged because the misleading representations 'emanated' from Nordic Ware's Minnesota operations. On the merits, the court found the 'Made in USA' claim is ambiguous (not literally false) because it can reasonably be understood to refer to either assembly location or component origin, following Honeywell Int'l Inc. v. ICM Controls Corp. However, the court held that the representations are plausibly misleading to a reasonable consumer. The court found that injury (a price premium paid), causation, and Rule 9(b) fraud particularity (who, what, when, where, how) were all adequately alleged.
2. New York Claims (Counts III & IV): Nordic Ware argued Kaufmann failed to allege a material misrepresentation, causation, and that key allegations were made only on 'information and belief.' The court rejected all three arguments. Kaufmann adequately alleged he paid a price premium in reliance on the 'Made in USA' claim. The court noted that the 'information and belief' qualifier in the complaint's preamble did not infect all allegations; the only allegation specifically made on information and belief was the estimate of class member numerosity, which is not an element of the New York statutory claims.
3. California Claims (Counts V, VI, VII & IX): Nordic Ware's primary argument was that California's 'safe harbor' doctrine—which bars state consumer protection claims when the legislature has specifically permitted or addressed the relevant conduct—blocked all California claims. California Business & Professions Code § 17533.7 prohibits 'Made in USA' labeling when merchandise or any part of it was 'entirely or substantially made, manufactured, or produced outside of the United States,' subject to exceptions when foreign-sourced components constitute not more than 5% (or, under certain conditions, 10%) of the final wholesale value. A California appellate court (Benson v. Kwikset Corp.) had interpreted the statute to not prohibit use of foreign raw materials if all manufacturing and processing occurred in the U.S. The court found the safe harbor doctrine did not apply here because the plaintiffs alleged that the bauxite was transformed into alumina and aluminum in Canada (not merely sourced internationally), and that aluminum is the 'primary' and 'fundamental' component of the products—making it plausible that foreign-sourced material exceeds 10% of wholesale value. The individual California statutory claims (CLRA, FAL, UCL) and the unjust enrichment/equitable restitution claim all survived for the same underlying reasons: plausible allegations of deceptive representations, reliance, and injury. The court noted that equitable relief under the UCL is available where plaintiffs allege legal remedies are inadequate, which Thayer did.
4. Breach of Express Warranty (Count VIII): Nordic Ware argued (a) plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims under laws of states where they don't reside, and (b) some states require pre-suit notice to manufacturers. The court rejected both: Kaufmann and Thayer are only personally asserting claims under Minnesota law and their respective home state laws; the notice argument was drawn from class certification case law, not a basis for dismissing the named plaintiffs' individual claims.
5. Common-Law Fraud (Count X): Nordic Ware argued reliance, damages, and scienter (intent to deceive) were inadequately pleaded. The court found all three elements adequately alleged: reliance and damages through the price-premium theory; scienter through allegations that Nordic Ware knew consumers pay a 10% premium for American-made goods, described its customers as people who 'appreciate American-made products,' and carefully designed its labeling to induce purchasing decisions based on the USA representations.
RULING: Nordic Ware's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 24] is DENIED in its entirety. All ten counts proceed.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 32-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.