1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

BRYON JACKSON and Civil Action No. 

MARIO MENA, JR. 

Plaintiffs, CLASS ACTION

v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV SA/NV, LLC,

and MIAMI BEER VENTURES, LLC

Defendant.

____________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND OTHER RELIEF

The Plaintiffs, BYRON JACKSON and MARIO MENA, JR., by and through their 

undersigned attorneys, files this Class Action Complaint for Injunctive and Other Relief against 

Defendants, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV, LLC, (“ABI”) and Miami Beer Ventures LLC 

(“MBV”) (collectively “Defendants”), and state:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Defendants make and sell beer under the name Veza Sur. Veza Sur pretends to be 

a craft beer made in Miami and with Latin roots. In reality, it is simply another one of the dozens 

of brands made by the largest brewer in the world, Anheuser-Busch. It has no authentic Latin 

roots, and is not even made in Miami. Defendants’ misrepresentations have deceived the Plaintiffs 

who thought they were purchasing a craft beer that was made in Miami by a small brewery.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

2. Plaintiff BYRON JACKSON, is a citizen of Florida who resides in Miami-Dade 

County, is over the age of eighteen years, and is otherwise sui juris.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 1 of 47
2

3. Plaintiff MARIO MENA, JR., is a citizen of Florida who resides in Miami-Dade 

County, is over the age of eighteen years, and is otherwise sui juris.

4. ABI is incorporated in Belgium, with headquarters in the United States in St. Louis, 

Missouri and New York City, New York.

5. MBV is a Florida limited liability company with a principal address in Miami, 

Florida, a registered agent in Miami, Florida, and a mailing address in St. Louis, Missouri.

6. This Court has original jurisdiction over this putative class action lawsuit pursuant 

to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d)(2) & (6), because the aggregate 

sum of the claims of the members of the putative class action exceed $5,000,000.00, exclusive of 

interest and costs, because the Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of the proposed classes that are 

comprised of over one hundred members, and because at least one of the members of the proposed 

classes is a citizen of a different state than ABI. Further federal question jurisdiction exists 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and supplemental jurisdiction exists over the state law claims 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

7. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part 

of the events giving rise to the claims took place within this District, because distribution, 

advertisement, and sale of the beers at issue occurred within this District, and because documents 

and witnesses will be located in this District.

8. All conditions precedent to the filing and maintenance of this action have occurred, 

been performed, or been waived.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 2 of 47
3

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

Context for the current beer market: The development of “craft beer” in the United States

9. According to Ari Shapiro “the story of beer is the story of America.”1

10. A large wave of German immigrants in the second half of the 1800s, with their 

brewing techniques, tradition, and new yeast strain sparked the first beer revolution in the United 

States, ultimately leading to neighborhoods filled with breweries by 1900.2

11. For example, there was the storied “Brewers’ Row” in Bushwick, Brooklyn where 

there were 11 breweries in a 12-block area.3

12. Prohibition, which lasted from 1920 until 1933, decimated the beer industry and 

ultimately the American consumer lost its taste for traditional beer flavors; beginning in the 1950’s 

large breweries began producing lighter styles of beer.4 5

1 See https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/07/03/532250762/how-the-story-of-beer-is-the-story-ofamerica?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_

content=20180704, “If you want to talk about the history of immigration in America, or urbanization or the 

expansion of transportation networks, really any subject that you want to explore, you can talk about it 

through beer.” 

2 Id.

3 https://beerandbrewing.com/dictionary/Aq7FFTStrH/

4 See https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas-bad-taste-in-beer-is-prohibitions-legacy11579219039?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=5, “The popularity of soft drinks soared during 

prohibition and Americans started their long love affair with sugary carbonated beverages. PostProhibition, brewers had to produce beers that satisfied the country’s changed palate. A brewer’s digest 

article in 1938 expressed concerns about the ability of post-Prohibition drinkers to ‘discriminate regarding 

the quality of beer.’ They were ‘unable to judge the fine points of beer with accuracy,’ the magazine 

observed. ‘To the majority of them such things as body, aroma, taste, and flavor are nothing but words.’”. 

5 “Beginning in the 1950’s, the macros began to produce lighter and lighter styles of beer. This culminated 

in 1974, with Miller’s successful introduction of Miller Lite, which had a third fewer calories and 10-15 

percent less alcohol than traditional macro lager beer. Miller Lite was such a remarkable success that all 

the major macrobrewers soon followed with their own brands of light beer.” Kenneth G. Elzinga, Carol 

Horton Tremblay, and Victor J. Tremblay, Craft Beer in the United States: History, Numbers, and 

Geography, Journal of Wine Economics Volume 10, Number 3, 2015, Pages 242, 255 

https://liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/sites/liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/files/economics/pdf/faculty/tremblaycarol/tremblay_c_-_vol.10-issue03-craft-beer-in-the-united-states-history-numbers-and-geography-bykenneth-g.-elzinga3.pdf

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 3 of 47
4

13. In 1965, Fritz Maytag purchased the Anchor Steam Beer Company, which would 

have been considered the United States’ last craft beer company, and sparked the craft beer 

revolution.6 In the 1980s, small breweries began appearing at a rapid pace in the United States, 

and have continued to produce what is considered to be “quality beer” in a variety of styles.7 By 

2015, this burgeoning craft brew scene was gaining market share with momentum, as “small and 

independent craft breweries had grown to a 21% share of the entire beer market, with a 13% rise 

in volume over the previous year.”8 These breweries represent “the birth of an entirely new beer 

industry.”9

14. The removal of the federal excise tax on homebrewing helped fuel this increase in 

market share because most craft breweries begin in someone’s home.10 When the craft brew scene 

emerged, the oligopoly held by the largest producers, including ABI, began to wane. The number 

of breweries in the United States ballooned from 89 to more than 7,100.11

15. By 2016, Florida alone had nearly 200 craft breweries, which accounted for a 

$2,000,000,000.00 economic impact.12 But room for growth remained going into 2017.13

16. Going into 2017, the desire for and market share of craft brewing was on the rise. 

And the ability to market oneself as an independent, craft brewery also has pricing implications. 

6 Id. at 246.

7 Christopher J. Fraga, Note & Comment, A Room with a Brew: A Comparative Look at Homebrewing

Laws in Japan & the United States, 72 U. Miami L. Rev. 1239, 1259-60 (2018).

8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Id. See also id. at 1268-69.

11 See id. (referencing dates from 1979 through 2016).

12 Id.

13 Id.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 4 of 47
5

Consumers are willing to pay more for a beer from a brewery that tells a story and offers a craft 

product than they are for a beer that comes from a faceless corporate behemoth.

14

17. As Theresa McCulla explains, “one of the most interesting aspects of the history of 

American beer is that it has come full circle: from the early days of homebrews to mass-produced 

beer, through the crash of prohibition and back to a resurgence of microbreweries.”15

Consumers expectation of authenticity for beer designated as “craft” and “local”

18. Consumers prefer food products that are locally produced, as locally produced 

goods are considered to have higher quality, doing so supports local business, and its production 

involves less use of fossil fuels.16

19. A study conducted by CR Research in 2019 found that almost half of the people 

surveyed stated they consume craft beer at least once a week. The driving force behind the appeal 

of craft beer was taste and quality. Of those surveyed, 91% stated they preferred craft beer over 

big brand beer and 86% said they would pay more for the craft beer of their preference.17 

20. A majority of craft beer drinkers state they only buy beer sold in their region or 

town or city (local beer).18 Additionally, a recent study found consumers wanted to pay less money 

per pint for craft beer owned by large beer companies than those owned by an independent 

brewery.19 Further, a recent empirical study found, “when authentic organizations behave 

14 See brewersassociation.org/press-releases/2017-craft-beer-review/; bevindustry.com/articles/90103-

craft-brewers-capture-123-percent-share-of-beer-market-in-2016

15 See https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/07/03/532250762/how-the-story-of-beer-is-the-story-ofamerica?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2

0180704 16 Elzinga at 256.

17 See https://www.crresearch.com/blog/survey-reveals-factors-driving-craft-beer-growth, 18 See https://www.brewbound.com/news/power-hour-nielsen-shares-2019-craft-beer-consumer-insights

19 Jarret Hart, Drinkers prefer Big Beer Keeps its hands off their local craft brews, 

https://theconversation.com/drinkers-prefer-big-beer-keeps-its-hands-off-their-local-craft-brews-110488

February 12, 2019. 

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 5 of 47
6

inauthentically” (specifically when a craft brewery sells to a macro brewery) that organization is 

“punished” by the consumer.20

21. When it comes to craft beer, authenticity “may act as a considerable barrier to entry 

for larger organizations.”21

22. Larger organizations that attempt to acquire authenticity very well may be 

damaging the authenticity that made the smaller organization an attractive purchase in the first 

place.22

23. Ultimately, consumers prefer local craft beer “but when a brewery is acquired it is 

no longer considered local.”23

“If people do the work to find out that we own these craft brands, God bless ‘em”: the world’s 

most dominant brewery’s relentless pursuit of craft and efforts to blur the definition for 

consumers 

24. The sheer size and dominance of ABI in the United States and global beer market 

cannot be overstated. 

25. In 2019, ABI had 39.9% of the market share of all beer sold in the United States.24

20 Justin Flake, Selling Out: The Inauthenticity Discount in the Craft Beer Industry, Management Scient 

Volume 63, Issue 11 

https://liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/sites/liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/files/economics/pdf/faculty/tremblaycarol/tremblay_c_-_vol.10-issue03-craft-beer-in-the-united-states-history-numbers-and-geography-bykenneth-g.-elzinga3.pdf, 

21 Id. 

22 Id.

23 Jarrett Hart, Scraping the Bottom of the Beer Barrel: Consumer Preferences for Localness and 

Responses to Brewery Acquisitions, 

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=50507408211409601910300212700510402904904705608

4030089124065095009123073127099068002052103055052104116023097115120002072084098028045

0360410650260211030210040300020250770280770260891220930960940690940941210711180180670

05025080107113101106112002120083126&EXT=pdf last revised April 2, 2019. 24 See https://www.nbwa.org/resources/industry-fast-facts

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 6 of 47
7

26. As of 2016, of the estimated 3,000 U.S. beer distributors, approximately 1,110 are 

aligned with brewers such as ABI or Miller Coors.25

27. Absent several exceptions, alcohol in the United States typically travels through the 

“three tier system”, from manufacturers/importers, to distributors, to the retail market. Distributors 

play a pivotal role in the way beer reaches consumers and ultimately the success of breweries.26

28. When looking at craft brands it may acquire, ABI’s ability to distribute the craft 

beer through its own distributors is critical to ABI’s decision whether to purchase the brand, as 

well as the brand’s success.27

29. In the early 1990s, ABI attempted to determine how it could profit from a surge in 

the popularity of craft beer. However, ABI could not duplicate the authenticity of craft beers. 

25 See https://www.reuters.com/article/us-Anheuser-i-craftbeers-probe-exclusive-idUSKCN0YG0EG , 26 See https://marker.medium.com/how-the-worlds-biggest-brewer-killed-the-craft-beer-buzze205a28ff632, “As the linchpin between producers and retailers in the United States’ peculiar postprohibition booze-selling system, distribution is as crucial to a brewers’ success as their beer—if not more 

so....But since 1980, the number of traditional beer distributors has decreased from over 4,500 to around 

3,000 according to the National Beer Wholesaler Association. This benefits big brewers like ABI. The 

fewer access points to the market there are, the more sway macrobrewers have over those that remain. That 

is, if they don’t already own them outright. In his book, Noel reported that ABI has actually bought up 18 

distributorships in states where its legal to do so...And lo: ABI has ‘an absolute hammerlock on 

distribution,’ said the American Antitrust Institute’s Moss’”. 

27 “The other strategic thing I think is very critical for us we are very biased about our wholesalers. We 

want to make sure that we partner with other brewers that we have the ability to have those brands 

distributed through our network our distribution network, we’ve got quite a successful distribution network 

500 plus distributors out there it’s kind of world class distribution system so we want to make sure we’re 

able to utilize that and build our brands through our system that’s a key component to us in terms of building 

a brand because some of things you talked about earlier is very true in terms of distribution in terms of 

being able to get on the shelf....it’s critical...we talk to a lot of different craft businesses owners and as 

they start to get big start to have too much of that competitive distribution network in the mix and that is 

something we look at” Andy Goeler, A-B InBev’s CEO of Craft (at the time) speaking at BrewBound 

Session Chicago: Exploring ANHEUSER InBev’s High End Portfolio, accessed via 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajyXRVCgP5o June 18, 2015 starting around 2:00 mark and 

continuing to 3:40.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 7 of 47
8

Nevertheless, ABI created craft brands such as Pacific Ridge, and by utilizing its Michelob brand 

to introduce a wide variety of crafty beers. However, those ventures were not successful.28

30. ABI also made its first craft purchases in the early 1990s, including minority stakes 

in Red Hook Brewing in 1994 and Widmer Brothers in 1997.29

31. ABI made clear to its investors that the true purpose for this investment in craft beer 

was to perk up and support Budweiser: “[i]n the halls of Anheuser-Busch, the message was clear: 

craft existed only to defend Bud and Bud Light.”30

32. By 2010, craft beer was on the rise again and 2011 saw the beginning of a new 

wave of ABI purchases of craft brewers:31

• 2011 Goose Island Brewing Company 

• 2014 Bluepoint Brewery 

• 2014 10 Barrel Brewing

• 2015 Elysian Brewing

• 2015 Golden Road Brewing

• 2015 Breckenridge Brewing

28 See https://marker.medium.com/how-the-worlds-biggest-brewer-killed-the-craft-beer-buzze205a28ff632, “Schoen tried to build an answer to craft beer from within the company, launching lookalike brands that had little apparent connection to Anheuser-Busch, aping Sierra Nevada with Pacific Ridge 

and Shiner Bock with ZiegenBock. It was a begrudging admission in St. Louis that microbrewing was no 

mere fad...It did not go well.” 

29 Id. 30 “By 1998 the Specialty Group abandoned the American Originals and went all in on the Michelob beers. 

In the company’s annual report, August Busch III noted that the specialty segment was still growing faster 

than the rest of the industry and that it provided higher profit margins. But the category’s true use, he said, 

was propping up the sagging Budweiser: ‘Eighty percent of the specialty volume is consumed by drinkers 

who regularly drink mainstream brands. So, the favorable impressions of Anheuser-Busch generated by 

our specialty portfolio carry over and have positive impact on our mainstream brands.’” Josh Noel, barrelAged Stout and Selling Out: Goose Island, Anheuser-Busch, And How Craft Beer Became Big Business, 

pg. 76. 

31 See https://vinepair.com/craft-beer-sales/; See also https://www.brewbound.com/news/anheuser-buschinbev-acquires-platform-beer-co

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 8 of 47
9

• 2015 Four Peaks Brewing

• 2016 Devils Backbone Brewing

• 2016 Karbach Brewing

• 2017 Wicked Weed Brewing

• 2019 Platform Brewing

33. While publicly ABI claims no overarching strategy to the its purchases, observers 

of the beer market have taken note of “ABI’s hidden strategy” to “acquir[e] craft proxies in the 

country’s most important beer markets, geographically encircling the nation’s brewers and the 

drinkers they served.”32

34. However, ABI’s craft beer purchases are not limited to breweries; ABI has also 

purchased Northern Brewer, which is an online homebrewing commerce platform, and 

RateBeer.com, which is an online beer-ranking forum.33

35. ABI has also launched a partnership with publisher Conde Nast to create a digital 

publication about beer culture.

34

36. Further, ABI has pushed back against efforts by craft brewers to promote and 

encourage true craft brewing. The Brewer’s Association is a not-for-profit trade organization 

representing America’s small and independent craft brewers. The multitude of craft brewery 

purchases by larger breweries and the blurring of the term “craft” led the Brewer’s Association to 

32 See https://marker.medium.com/how-the-worlds-biggest-brewer-killed-the-craft-beer-buzze205a28ff632,. 33 Id.

34 “Investments like October give ABI a platform to promote its vision for a post-craft future—a future that 

favors its brands position in the market. In the coming age, ‘beer-positive, bring the industry together-type 

thinking’ will carry the day, said Meg Lagesse, the director of communications for ABI’s craft business 

unit.” Id. 

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 9 of 47
10

introduce a certification seal in 2017 (the “Independent Seal”). That Independent Seal on a beer’s 

package certifies that the brewer meets the organization’s definition of craft brewer.35 

37. To qualify as a craft brewer per the Brewers Association (1) a brewery must 

produce six million barrels of beer or less annually; (2) less than 25 percent of the craft brewery 

can be owned or controlled—or equivalent economic interest—by a beverage alcohol industry 

member which is not itself a craft brewer, and (3) a TTB Brewer’s Notice must be present.36,37

38. The Independent Seal clearly hit a nerve with ABI. Just three days later it released 

a video on its own Vimeo Account titled “Six View Points From the High End,” where six 

employees of ABI’s recently purchased breweries gave their take on the Independent Seal.38 The 

“High End” is how ABI refers internally to its craft and import divisions, including Veza Sur.

39

39. Dave Buhler, from Elysian Brewing, states, “well to be independent would mean 

you don’t put the logo on because you’re indie. So, to be truly punk you don’t use the logo. You 

do your own thing and you follow your own rules.”40

40. Garret Wales from 10 Barrel Brewing states “at the end of the day the beer does the 

talking not the label on the package and the consumer makes up their own mind. The problem is 

the BA continues to refuse to let the consumer make up their own mind and try to make it up for 

35 See https://www.brewersassociation.org/press-releases/brewers-association-launches-new-sealdesignate-independent-beers/, “[a]s Big Beer acquires former craft brands, beer drinkers have become 

increasingly confused about which brewers remain independent. Beer lovers are interested in transparency

when it comes to brewer ownership. This seal is a simple way to provide that clarity-now they can know 

what’s been brewed small and certified independent.” 

36 See https://www.brewersassociation.org/independent-craft-brewer-seal/

37 It should be noted that the 6 million barrel corresponds to the highest level of federal excise taxes paid 

on beer. See, https://www.ttb.gov/tax-audit/tax-and-fee-rates. 38 The High End, Six View Points from the High End, https://vimeo.com/223773287

39 See https://www.brewbound.com/news/anheuser-busch-inbev-reorganizes-high-end-division/

40 Id. 3:54 to 4:03.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 10 of 47
11

them. They got a little bottle that someone told me that’s what I have to buy because there is a 

little bottle on the six pack that doesn’t mean s*** to me.”41

41. Felipe Szpigel, the president of ABI’s “The High End” also gave an interview to 

Men’s Journal stating that the Independent Seal is “divisive” and the best thing to do is to “unite 

the development of the [beer] category.” Szpigel further states that craft beer to him is “beer, its 

story and it’s community impact” and that there is no difference between craft and non-craft beer.42

42. Initially, ABI did not deny that it was being opaque about which craft beers it 

owned. Indeed, in 2013, ABI’s chief marketing officer tacitly admitted that it intended to hide its 

ownership of craft breweries, stating “[i]f people do the work to find out that we own these craft 

brands, God bless’em.’”43

The development of consuming “Wynwood” and “Miami”

43. As of the 1970s, the Wynwood area of Miami was known for garment 

manufacturing, attracting shoppers from South America and other locations.44 However, after a 

troubled time for South American economies, those shoppers left and the neighborhood became 

impoverished and unsafe. 

44. By the early 2000s, however, the neighborhood was turning around.45 The 

Wynwood area was undergoing a city beautification and began to attract businesses. Commercial 

art galleries began to open.46

41 Id. 1:46 to 2:03.

42 See https://www.mensjournal.com/food-drink/ab-inbev-responds-to-the-introduction-of-theindependent-craft-brewer-seal-w490506/

43 Noel at 377. 44 wynwoodartwalk.com/brief-history-of-wynwood/. 45 Id.

46 Id.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 11 of 47
12

45. At the same time, the commercial areas that would later become Midtown were 

being constructed.47 The area was revitalized with entirely new commercial blocks and residential 

buildings. Restaurants and cafes began to open.48

46. Due in part to its “Second Saturday” monthly art walks, Wynwood was becoming 

a tourist location and a spot for locals to “see and be seen.”49 Companies offered tours of the area, 

including bicycle tours of the murals and graffiti, as well as walking tours.50

47. Today, Wynwood boasts more than 70 galleries, collections, and museums.51 The 

“Second Saturday” art walks attract thousands of people.52 The graffitied walls in Wynwood have 

grown in popularity so much they have their own coffee table book, “Walls of Change: the Story 

of the Wynwood Walls.”53

48. In 2018 alone, 2,900,000 people visited Wynwood, spending $526,000,000.54

49. Part of Miami and Wynwood’s recent success stems from Art Basel, an annual art 

fair with more than 269 galleries from 29 countries. Miami is one of only three Art Basel locations 

in the world —the other two being Basel, Switzerland and Hong Kong.55 Since 2002, Art Basel 

has been held in December in Miami Beach. In its Miami iteration, in 2014 the event drew 75,000 

visitors to Miami Beach.56 Since then, it has expanded, and now drives more than 100,000 art 

tourists to South Florida annually.57

47 Id.

48 Id.

49 Id.

50 Id.

51 Id.

52 Id.

53 miamiherald.com/news/business/real-estate-news/article232609437.html. 54 Id.

55naiop.org/en/Research-and-Publications/Magazine/2015/Winter-2015-2016/DevelopmentOwnership/Creating-Value-With-Art-and-Design. 56 Id.

57 Id.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 12 of 47
13

50. Miami, of course, is also home to other cultural and international events, including 

but not limited to the Ultra Music Festival, the 2020 Super Bowl, the Miami International Boat 

Show, the Coconut Grove Arts Festival, the Food Network & Cooking Channel South Beach Wine 

& Food Festival, Calle Ocho, the Miami Open, the New Times Brew at the Zoo, Miami Beach 

Pride, Miami Fashion Week, Miami Funkshion Swim Week, and Circuit Miami.58

51. In other words, both “Wynwood” and “Miami” have become brands that create an 

expectation for consumers regarding the nature of the products produced there.59

Veza Sur: macrobeer disguised as craft beer

52. Against this backdrop, the Veza Sur brewery opened in 2017.

53. Defendants intentionally and deliberately portray Veza Sur as a local, craft brewery 

that is born from, part of, and made in Miami. It masquerades as having Latin-American roots. 

54. In reality, Veza Sur is owned and operated by ABI.

55. Defendants present Veza Sur as “Wynwood’s Latin Craft Brewery & Bar.”60

According to its presence on Google results, Veza Sur is “Miami-born with Latin American 

roots.”61

58 miamiandbeaches.com/events/annual-events

59 See, e.g., miamiandbeaches.com/neighborhoods/wynwood (discussing the evolution of Wynwood); 

miamiandbeaches.com/about-gmcvb/gmcvb-staff-directory/travel-industry-sales-marketing-team

(explaining, “Our global representation network covering 53 countries allows us to make global 

connections by actively participating in high-profile industry events, fostering relationships and expanding 

business opportunities for our member partners”); miamiandbeaches.com/press-room/miami-pressreleases/state-of-industry-2017 (discussing the “authentic” and “soul stirring” nature of Wynwood); 

cnn.com/travel/article/most-visited-cities-euromonitor-2018/index.html (providing that Miami is one of the 

most visited cities in the world); https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/top-businessstories/vogue-names-torontos-queen-street-west-worlds-second-hippest-district/article20488696/ (citing 

Vogue’s naming Wynwood one of the 10 hippest districts in the world) 

60 

www.google.com/search?q=veza+sur+beer&oq=vera+sur+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l7.4999j0j7&sourceid

=chrome&ie=UTF-8

61 Id.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 13 of 47
14

56. Defendants represent that its founding was “inspired by the travels of twin brothers 

and 10 Barrel Brewing cofounders Chris and Jeremy Cox. They, along with Max-Antonio Burger, 

who is in charge of new ventures and innovation at ABI, traveled to South America to explore its 

beer, food and culture. Shortly after, they learned that Berny Silberwasser, founder of Bogota Beer 

Company, was looking to start a project in Miami. The result is the soon-to-open Veza Sur 

Brewing.”62

57. 10 Barrel Brewing is owned by ABI. 

58. Max Antonio Burger works for ABI.

59. Bogota Beer Company is owned by Ambev, the Brazilian subsidiary of ABI.63

60. None of these people who allegedly developed the idea for Veza Sur is mentioned 

on Veza Sur’s website. Neither is their affiliation to ABI. 

61. According to the Florida Secretary of State website, the company operating as Veza 

Sur is Miami Beer Ventures LLC.

62. Although the company was originally founded in 2013 by Mr. Silberwasser, he was 

removed as manager and replaced by ABI employee Max Antonio Burger on December 22, 2016. 

63. In fact, the mailing address for MBV is One Busch Place, St. Louis, MO 63118, 

which is ABI’s address. 

64. Presently, there are 15 authorized representatives for MBV listed with the Florida 

Secretary of State, all of whom list their address as either ABI’s corporate headquarters or ABI’s 

corporate strategy office.64 

62 See https://www.miaminewtimes.com/restaurants/anheuser-busch-opening-veza-sur-brewing-co-inwynwood-9284101

63 See https://www.financecolombia.com/budweiser-in-bbc-bogotAnheusereer-company-acquired-byinbevs-ambev-unit/

64 125 W 24th Street New York, NY 10011, which is also the address for ZX Ventures, another ABI-owned 

company. 

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 14 of 47
15

65. Silberwasser is not listed as an authorized person for MBV. 

66. Each authorized representative works for ABI corporate, legal, or an ABI brewery, 

except for Marshall Hendrickson who is a manager for Veza Sur (although his address is also 

ABI’s corporate strategy office.)

67. When Veza Sur was first announced in April 2017, the press released indicated the 

brand would only be available in Miami.65

68. However, ABI had already filed an intent to use federal trademark application for 

Veza Sur on November 9, 2016. Its application for trademark registration claims a priority date 

of May 12, 2016, based on a foreign trademark filing for the same mark in China. 

69. ABI obtained two trademarks for the mark Veza Sur, each of which have since been 

assigned to MBV. 

70. The home page of Veza Sur’s website welcomes consumers with the greeting, 

¡Bienvenidos!

71. Upon clicking the “Beers” button, consumers are directed to a list of beer choices 

including the following:

• Lulo Sour

• Spanglish (Latin Lager)

• Chopp Latin Lager

• La Yuma (Dark Lager)

• Chopp Dark Lager

• Mangolandia (Mango Blonde Ale)

65 See https://www.brewbound.com/news/anheuser-busch-launch-latin-themed-craft-brand-miami

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 15 of 47
16

• Mala Yerba (Session IPA)

• Per’La Coffee Porter

• La Curita Imperial Stout

• Vezayuno Sour Dough Breakfast Ale

• Toronjipa

• No Reservations

• Flo-J

• Belgian Gator Ale

• Double IPA

• Arroz con Mango.66

Each of the beers is pictured in a glass that says, “Veza Sur Brewing Co.” None of the 

beers list any other information regarding origin or ownership of the brand. For example, Spanglish 

(Latin Lager) is presented simply as a Latin beer from Veza Sur and for Miami.67,

68

66 vezasur.com/beers/

67 Interestingly, Spanglish has the same ABV content as Bud Light, another ABI product. 

68 Additionally, Veza Sur sells beer Michelada’s made with Latin Lager. ABI produces “Bud Light 

Chelada” which is listed as bud light lager beer with natural flavor and certified color. 

https://www.budlight.com/en/our-beers.html

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 16 of 47
17

72. The “Latin” influence of each of the beers is highlighted throughout Veza Sur’s 

descriptions. Lulo Sour is noted as “staying true to Lulo: a Colombian original.”69 Spanglish is not 

only called a “Latin Lager,” but is promoted as being “[i]nspired by our Latin roots, crisp and 

refreshing, perfect for a hot Miami day.”70 Chopp Latin Lager is part of a “fresh and full bodied 

Brazilian tradition.”71 Mala Yerba is apparently where “West Coast meets Latin America.”72

Per’La Coffee Porter cannot help itself from being “cold-infused with a custom blend of medium 

and dark roasted Brazilian coffee.”73 La Curita Imperial Stout asks, “[q]ue mas quieres?”74

Vezayuno Sour Dough Breakfast Ale is named “Vezayuno,” which is literally Spanish for 

“breakfast.” Arroz con Mango is noted for being a description provided by Veza Sur’s “Cuban 

friends.”75 ABI has no Latin roots whatsoever, having been created by a German brewer in St. 

Louis, Missouri.

73. Additionally, Veza Sur announces to consumers that it is “Miami.” Mangolandia 

ponders:

Did you ever wake up from the sound of ripe mangos falling on your 

roof? This bright and sessionable Blonde Ale is Miami Summer in 

a glass.76

69 vezasur.com/beer/lulo-sour/

70 vezasur.com/beer/spanglish-latin-lager/

71 vezasur.com/beer/chopp-latin-lager/. See also vezasur.com/beer/chopp-dark-lager/ (last accessed May 

28, 2020).

72 vezasur.com/beer/mala-yerba-session-ipa/

73 vezasur.com/beer/perla-coffee-porter/ (advising, “[i]ts rich and smooth roast flavor will have you ditching 

your afternoon cafecito”).

74 vezasur.com/beer/la-curita-imperial-stout/

75 vezasur.com/beer/arroz-con-mango/

76 vezasur.com/beer/mangolandia-mango-blonde-ale/

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 17 of 47
18

Notwithstanding the fact that it is an India Pale Ale, Toronjipa is stated as being “Miami style.”77

Flo-J is called a “Florida natural.”78 “Que rico meng!”79

74. The Veza Sur Brewery is marketed as being local to Miami and having a homespun 

feel. It is declared, “Miami-born with Latin American roots.”80 Photographs of four men appear 

with captions like, “I’ve worked and lived in the Bahamas for 7 years as a boat captain,” along 

with other statements that denote a lack of attachment to a larger business enterprise.81

77 vezasur.com/beer/toronjipa/

78 vezasur.com/beer/flo-j/

79 Id. 80 vezasur.com/brewery/

81 Id.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 18 of 47
19

75. Even the google maps link on the Veza Sur website cries “craft.” Under a banner 

title, “Drink Beer Here,” consumers are directed to a pin drop for the location, “Veza Sur Brewing, 

Brewery/taproom with craft suds.”82

76. The products themselves similarly reflect a commitment to the charade that Veza 

Sur is a local brewery in the business of brewing craft beer. The container of a six-bottle pack of 

82 vezasur.com/#wrapFooter

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 19 of 47
20

Spanglish asserts that Spanglish is a Latin Lager from Veza Sur Brewing Co., “Bottles of Great 

Brews and Hella Good Vibes.” There is no corporation registered in Florida called Veza Sur 

Brewing Co. Instead Veza Sur Brewing Co. is a fictious name registered by both MBV and 

Islamorada Brewing Company, LLC.

77. The side of the packaging contains the hashtag, “HechaEnMiami,” or “Made In 

Miami”.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 20 of 47
21

78. The bottom of the packaging asserts that Veza Sur is a one-off location of a small 

business: “Our Pub > 55 NW 25th St. Miami, FL 33127.”

79. However, at least some, if not all Veza Sur beer is actually brewed at a facility in 

Fort Pierce, Florida and not in Miami. For instance, one side of the Spanglish bottle claims to be 

made in Miami, and the other side admits (in much smaller print) that it is made in Fort Pierce, 

130 miles away. 

 

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 21 of 47
22

80. Indeed, Veza Sur beers are brewed by the Islamorada Brewing Company, LLC, in 

Fort Pierce. 

81. In discussing the decision to begin bottling Veza Sur beers, the “Co-Founder” 

explained, “[s]ince opening 18 months ago, we’ve received great feedback on our beers and are 

super pumped that they are now available in bottles,” adding, “’[o]ur focus is flavorful, tropical 

and easy drinking beers. We wanted our bottles to mirror our vibrant Miami and Latin roots.”83

82. The Official Site of Greater Miami and the Beaches describes Veza Sur as having 

“mysterious Brazilian and Latin American roots” that “create an expectation from the moment you 

hear its name ....”84

83. Both the website and the packaging for Veza Sur include graffiti-style artwork from 

@spainter, a Wynwood artist.

84. Veza Sur’s Instagram profile describes it as “[a] Miami-born craft brewery with 

Latin-American roots.”85

85. Defendants have marketed Veza Sur its brand as being distinctly Miami through its 

Instagram profile. For example, Defendants have described Veza Sur as bringing “Miami Brews” 

to New York, inviting “our MIA fam” to join it at an Oktoberfest:

83 brewbound.com/news/anheuser-busch-begins-packaging-veza-sur-offerings-in-bottles

84 miamiandbeaches.com/thing-to-do/nightlife/veza-sur-brewing-co/13318

85 https://www.instagram.com/vezasurbrewingco/

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 22 of 47
23

86. In the event that a consumer elects to click on the “Terms and Conditions,” they 

may, for the first time, learn that the “website or mobile application,” are “owned and provided by 

Anheuser-Busch.”86 The words “Veza Sur” do not appear in the Terms and Conditions. The Terms 

and Conditions direct consumers to the Beer Institute Advertising and Marketing Code.87

87. That Code admonishes:

Advertising and marketing materials are legitimate efforts by 

brewers to inform consumers of the particular styles and attributes 

of numerous beers and other malt beverages that are available. 

Brewer advertising and marketing materials also foster competition, 

persuade adult consumers of beer to try particular brands, and 

maintain customer loyalty.

Brewers should employ the perspective of the reasonable adult 

consumer of legal drinking age in advertising and marketing their 

products, and should be guided by the following basic principles, 

86 vezasur.com/terms-and-conditions/

87 Id. 

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 23 of 47
24

which have long been reflected in the policies of the brewing 

industry and continue to underlie this Code:

...

• Advertising themes, creative aspects, and placements should 

reflect the fact that Brewers are responsible corporate 

citizens.88

88. Further, the Code directly advises against the making of false or exaggerated 

claims:

4. Beer advertising and marketing materials should not make 

the following exaggerated product representations:

a. Beer advertising and marketing materials should not convey 

the impression that a beer has special or unique qualities if 

in fact it does not.89

89. However, Defendants fail to inform consumers that Veza Sur is a macrobrew ABI 

brand, and not a craft Miami brand. Nor do Defendants afford consumers the knowledge or 

expectation that they will be drinking an ABI beer. Instead Defendants traffic in the false idea 

Veza Sur has Miami, Brazilian, and/or Latin American roots.

90. Despite all of Defendants false marketing and branding, Veza Sur is not a craft 

brewery. Instead, it is just another beer from ABI, the largest beer company in the world.

Plaintiffs’ Experience with Veza Sur

91. At all relevant times, Plaintiff, BYRON JACKSON resided in, and continues to 

reside in, Miami-Dade County, Florida. During the relevant time period, BYRON JACKSON 

heard through local and social media of a new craft brewery opening in Wynwood. BYRON 

JACKSON, being from and as a resident of Miami, takes into consideration the ownership of 

88 beerinstitute.org/responsibility/advertising-marketing-code/

89 beerinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/BEER-6735-2018-Beer-Ad-Code-Update-Brochure-forweb.pdf

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 24 of 47
25

businesses he frequents and consistently chooses to support locally owned businesses. Soon after 

Veza Sur’s grand opening, BYRON JACKSON and a group of colleagues visited the purported 

“new local business,” and proceeded to purchase a few rounds of various types of beer on draft. 

At that time, he and his colleagues were informed by the staff of Veza Sur about the creators being 

of and from Miami, and the brief history about the Veza Sur brand. Thereafter, BYRON 

JACKSON continued to patronize Veza Sur’s Wynwood brewery multiple times a month and to 

invite friends and colleagues from out of town to brag about the “new Miami local craft brewery” 

several times a year. All of the marketing and information provided to patrons was that Veza Sur 

was a local Miami craft brewery. Shortly thereafter in 2019, BYRON JACKSON purchased 

approximately one (1) six-pack of a Veza Sur brand per month, to keep at home, from retailers 

licensed by the State of Florida to sell malt beverages. Each bottle of Veza Sur he purchased had 

a claim set forth on the label that the beer was bottled in Miami. BYRON JACKSON took Veza 

Sur’s representations that Veza Sur was a local Miami craft brewery into account in visiting the 

brewery, inviting friends, and in making his purchases. He would not have visited the Veza Sur 

brewery, invited friends, or purchased Veza Sur had he known that Veza Sur’s representations 

were false. Based on Defendants’ representations and claims, BYRON JACKSON purchased beer 

that had less value than what he paid, perpetuated the misrepresentation to friends, and he has 

suffered legally cognizable damages proximately caused by Defendant’s misconduct. After 

learning the truth about ABI’s mislabeling of Veza Sur, BYRON JACKSON stopped visiting the 

brewery and purchasing it at retailers. However, BYRON JACKSON, might resume visiting the 

brewery and resume purchasing Veza Sur if and when he learns that it is accurately labeled.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 25 of 47
26

92. At all relevant times, Plaintiff, MARIO MENA, JR resided in, and continues to 

reside in, Miami-Dade County, Florida. During the relevant time period, MARIO MENA, JR heard 

through local and social media of a new craft brewery opening in Wynwood. MARIO MENA, 

JR, being from and as a resident of Miami, takes into consideration the ownership of businesses 

he frequents and consistently chooses to support locally owned businesses. Soon after Veza Sur’s 

grand opening, MARIO MENA, JR, visited the purported “new local business,” and proceeded to 

purchase a few different types of beers available on draft. During his visit, he was informed by 

the staff of Veza Sur about the creators being of and from Miami, and the brief history about the 

Veza Sur brand. None of these representations, nothing inside the brewery or any other information 

was conveyed that Veza Sur was in fact an ABI brand. Thereafter, MARIO MENA, JR continued 

to patronize Veza Sur’s Wynwood brewery multiple times a month and to invite friends from out 

of town to the “new Miami local craft brewery” several times a year. All of the marketing and 

information provided to patrons was that Veza Sur was a local Miami craft brewery. Shortly 

thereafter in 2019, MARIO MENA, JR purchased approximately one (1) six-pack of a Veza Sur 

brand per month, to keep at home, from retailers licensed by the State of Florida to sell malt 

beverages. Each bottle of Veza Sur he purchased had a claim set forth on the label that the beer 

was bottled in Miami. MARIO MENA, JR took Veza Sur’s representations that Veza Sur was a 

local Miami craft brewery in visiting the brewery, inviting friends, and in making his purchases. 

He would not have visited, invited friends, or purchased Veza Sur had he known that Veza Sur’s 

representations were false. Based on Defendants’ representations and claims, MARIO MENA, JR

purchased beer that had less value than what he paid, perpetuated the misrepresentation to friends, 

and he has suffered legally cognizable damages proximately caused by Defendant’s misconduct. 

After learning the truth about ABI’s mislabeling of Veza Sur, MARIO MENA, JR stopped visiting 

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 26 of 47
27

the brewery and purchasing it at retailers. However, MARIO MENA, JR, might resume visiting 

the brewery and resume purchasing Veza Sur if and when he learns that it is accurately labeled.

93. The Plaintiffs and the putative members of the classes defined herein have been and 

will continue to be deceived or misled by the Defendants’ false and deceptive packaging and 

labeling and representations.

94. The Defendants’ website, Wynwood brewery, packaging, and labeling lead 

reasonable consumers to believe that Veza Sur is not owned by a large beer enterprise and is, in 

fact, a craft brewery with its origins and roots in Miami, Florida, Brazil, and Latin America.

95. To the detriment of consumers, the subject website, brewery, packaging, and 

labeling are false and misleading because Veza Sur is an ABI brand.

96. The false belief created by trafficking in the Wynwood, Miami, cultural heritage, 

and craft beer branding are material factors in influencing consumer purchase decisions.

97. Had the Plaintiffs and putative class members known the truth about Veza Sur, they 

would not have purchased the beers or would not have paid the higher prices they paid for the 

beers.

98. The Plaintiffs and each member of the putative classes have been harmed by 

purchasing the beers because they did not receive what they paid for.

99. Had Defendants not made the representations described above, the Plaintiffs 

would not have made their purchases or would not have been willing to pay a premium for their 

purchases. If the Plaintiffs could rely upon the truthfulness of the defendant’s labeling, they might 

continue to purchase the beers in the future.

100. Defendants’ misrepresentations cause confusion among consumers. Consumers

believe they are purchasing craft beer that is made in Miami by a small, independent brewery. But 

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 27 of 47
28

in fact, they are purchasing beer brewed for the world’s largest beer company in another part of 

the state.

101. Defendants know that consumers are willing to pay more for craft and local beer

products because the quality is higher, and Plaintiffs believe they are paying costs associated with 

craft beer that benefits the local economy.

102. Furthermore, Defendants’ misrepresentations cause confusion among retailers,

restaurants, and bars. These establishments purchase Veza Sur and market Veza Sur to the general

public as a craft beer. Many retailers and restaurants charge consumers a premium for craft beers

and local beers, and consumers are therefore further damaged by defendant’s misrepresentations. 

Retailers also typically group craft beers and local beers together, reinforcing the belief that Veza 

Sur is local, craft beer. Thus, consumers are further harmed by restaurants, bars, and retail stores 

selling Veza Sur at higher prices under the false belief that it is craft, local beer.

103. As a result of Defendants’ false, deceptive, and misleading packaging, labeling and 

omissions, consumers such as Plaintiffs are deceived when they purchase Veza Sur beer. As a 

result of that deception, Defendants have collected millions of dollars from the sale of Veza Sur

Beer that they would not have otherwise been paid. The Plaintiffs and Class members paid money

for a product that is not what it claims to be or what they bargained for. They paid a premium for 

Veza Sur Beer when they could have instead bought other, less expensive, domestic beer, and 

consumers have lost the opportunity to purchase and consume other, truly-local craft beer.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 28 of 47
29

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

104. The Plaintiffs, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3), 

bring this action on behalf of the following classes (the “Class”):

(a) All consumers who purchased Veza Sur beer at a retail location in the 48 contiguous 

United States for offsite, personal, family, or household purposes and not for re-sale 

after viewing Veza Sur’s website, within the four years prior to the filing of this 

Complaint. 

(b) All consumers who purchased Veza Sur beer at Veza Sur’s brewery for offsite, 

personal, family, or household purposes and not for re-sale after viewing Veza Sur’s 

website, within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.

(c) All consumers who purchased Veza Sur beer at a retail location in the 48 contiguous 

United States for offsite, personal, family, or household purposes and not for re-sale, 

within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint.

(d) All consumers who purchased Veza Sur beer in the State of Florida for offsite, personal, 

family, or household purposes and not for re-sale after viewing Veza Sur’s website, 

within the four years prior to the filing of this Complaint. 

105. The following people are excluded from the classes: (1) any judge or magistrate 

presiding over this action and members of their families; (2) the defendant, the defendant’s 

subsidiaries, parents, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the defendant or their 

parents have a controlling interest, and its current or former employees, officers, and directors; (3) 

persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the classes; (4) persons 

whose claims in this matter have been finally adjudicated on the merits or otherwise released; (5) 

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 29 of 47
30

the Plaintiffs’ counsel and the defendant’s counsel; and (6) the legal representatives, successors, 

and assigns of any such excluded persons.

106. The Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify or amend the definition of the proposed 

classes and/or to add subclasses, if deemed necessary, before this Court determines whether 

certification is appropriate.

107. Numerosity pursuant to rule 23(a)(1): While the exact number of class members 

is unknown at this time, there are thousands of Veza Sur branded beers sold and purchased, each 

purchaser of which is a potential class member in this action. The number of class members is so 

numerous that joinder of each member is impractical.

108. Commonality pursuant to rule 23(a)(2): This action poses questions of law and 

fact that are common to and affect the rights of all members of the classes. Common questions of 

fact and law exist as to all members of the classes and such questions predominate over any 

questions solely affecting any individual member of the classes. The common questions include, 

but are not limited to:

(a) Whether the Defendants have engaged in deceptive and unfair trade practices in 

violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Florida Statutes 

Section 501.201, by: (a) representing their status as a local, Miami, craft brewery with 

Brazilian and Latin American roots, and by representing their products as locallyproduced craft beers;

(b) Whether the Defendants’ unfair and deceptive acts or practices were likely to deceive 

reasonable consumers about the true nature of the beers, which ABI markets, promotes, 

advertises, manufactures, distributes, and sells.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 30 of 47
31

(c) Whether Defendants’ representations regarding Veza Sur’s status as a local, Miami, 

craft brewery with Brazilian and Latin American roots were false representations of 

material fact.

(d) Whether Defendants acceptance and retention of the monetary benefit conferred upon 

them by Plaintiffs and the members of the classes are inequitable and unjust because 

they paid a premium for the Defendants’ products based on their beliefs that Veza Sur 

was a craft brewery, that the products were locally-produced, that Veza Sur was a 

locally-owned, Wynwood brewery, that Veza Sur was local to Miami, Florida, and/or 

that Veza Sur had Brazilian and Latin American roots.

(e) Whether the Defendants breached their express warranties to the class in violation of § 

672.313, Florida Statutes, by providing a false express warranty by affirmation of fact 

or promise, or description of the beers, regarding the craft status, origin, and origin 

story of the beers.

(f) Whether the Defendants breached an implied warranty to Plaintiffs and the members 

of the class in violation of § 672.314, Florida Statutes, because the Defendant’s 

products were unmerchantable in that they failed to conform to the promises or 

affirmations of fact made on the containers or labels. 

(g) Whether the Defendants breached the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 

2301, et seq., by making false and misleading express warranties regarding the “craft” 

status of the beers, their origin, and the independence of Veza Sur.

(h) Whether the defendants have negligently made false and misleading representations of 

material fact regarding Veza Sur’s status as a local, Miami, craft brewery with Brazilian 

and Latin American roots, the origin of its beers, and its independence.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 31 of 47
32

(i) Whether Defendants intentionally engaged in false advertising in violation of § 817.44, 

Florida Statutes offering for sale beers that were represented to be “craft,” local to 

Wynwood, Florida and Miami, Florida, and with roots in Brazil and Latin America, 

and/or by placing or causing to be placed before the general public and advertisement 

describing beers that were “craft,” local to Wynwood, Florida and Miami, Florida, and 

with roots in Brazil and Latin America, as part of a plan or scheme with the intent to 

sell beers that did not meet those qualifications. 

(j) Whether the Defendants disseminated or caused to have been made or disseminated 

before the general public of the state, or a portion thereof, a misleading advertisement, 

including statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form 

or otherwise, to or before the public, or any portion thereof, as to the fact that the beers 

were “craft,” local to Wynwood, Florida and Miami, Florida, and with roots in Brazil 

and Latin America, which were known or through the exercise of reasonable care or 

investigation could or might have been ascertained to be untrue or misleading.

(k) Whether the Defendants conspired to engage in false or misleading advertising in 

violation of sections 817.41 and 817.44, Florida Statutes.

(l) Whether Defendants have disseminated representations in a manner or means other 

than labeling, for the purpose of inducing, or which is likely to induce, directly or 

indirectly, the purchase of food that were false or misleading because they were 

inaccurate in their description of the “craft” status of Veza Sur beers, Veza Sur’s origin 

of Wynwood, Florida or Miami, Florida, and Veza Sur’s Brazilian and Latin American 

roots.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 32 of 47
33

(m)Whether Defendants misbranded their beers by labeling them in a manner that is false 

or misleading in any particular because they were inaccurate in their designation of the 

“craft” status of Veza Sur beers, Veza Sur’s origin of Wynwood, Florida or Miami, 

Florida, and Veza Sur’s Brazilian and Latin American roots.

(n) Whether the Plaintiffs and the members of the class have suffered damages as a result 

of the above-described conduct.

109. Typicality pursuant to rule 23(a)(3): Based on the facts and circumstances set 

forth herein, the Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the classes in that 

they arise out of the same deceptive or misleading acts, with regard to the same set of 

circumstances occurring during the same period of time, as described herein. 

110. Adequacy of representation pursuant to rule 23(a)(4): Based on the facts and 

circumstances set forth herein, the Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect and represent the 

interests of each member of the class. The Plaintiffs each purchased the beers, with at least one 

plaintiff purchasing the beers at the brewery, at least one plaintiff purchasing the beers in a retail 

location, at least one plaintiff purchasing the beers after having reviewed the terms online, and at 

least one plaintiff having not reviewed the terms online. In addition:

(a) The Plaintiffs are committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action on behalf of 

themselves and all others similarly situated and have retained competent counsel 

experienced in the prosecution of class actions and, in particular, actions regarding 

consumer protection class action cases. Counsel has repeatedly been appointed as Class 

Counsel by state and federal courts behalf of consumers.

(b) There is no hostility between the Plaintiffs and the unnamed members of the class;

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 33 of 47
34

(c) The Plaintiffs anticipate no difficulty in the management of this litigation as a class action; 

and

(d) The Plaintiff’s legal counsel have the financial and legal resources to meet the substantial 

costs and legal issues associated with this type of litigation.

111. Avoidance of risk pursuant to rule 23(b)(1)(A): The prosecution of separate 

claims or defenses by or against individual members of the classes would create a risk of either 

inconsistent or varying adjudications with respect to individual members of the classes that would 

establish incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing the classes and/or adjudications 

concerning individual members of the classes that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of 

the interests of other members of the classes who are not parties to the adjudications, or 

substantially impair or impede the ability of other members of the classes who are not parties to 

the adjudications to protect their interests.

112. Appropriateness of declaratory or injunctive relief pursuant to rule 23(b)(2):

the Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to all the members of 

the class with regard to the conduct complained of herein, making final injunctive relief or 

declaratory relief concerning the classes as a whole appropriate.

113. Superiority pursuant to rule 23(b)(3): The questions of law or fact common to 

the claim of the representative party and the claim of each member of the classes predominate over 

any question of law or fact affecting only individual members of the classes, and class 

representation is superior to other available methods of adjudication. Because the amount of each 

individual members of the classes’ claim is very small relative to the complexity of the litigation 

and because the financial resources of ABI are enormous, no member of the classes could afford 

to seek legal redress individually for the claims alleged herein. Therefore, absent a class action, 

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 34 of 47
35

the members of the classes will continue to suffer losses and the defendant’s conduct will proceed 

without remedy. In addition, even if members of the classes themselves could afford such 

individual litigation, the court system could not. Given the complex legal and factual issues 

involved, individualized litigation would significantly increase the delay and expense to all parties 

and to the Court. Individualized litigation would also create the potential for inconsistent or 

contradictory rulings. By contrast, a class action present far fewer management difficulties, allows 

claims to be heard which might otherwise go unheard because of the relative expense of bringing 

individual lawsuits, and provides the benefits of adjudication, economies of scale, and 

comprehensive supervision by a single court.

114. The respective interests of each member of the classes in individually controlling 

the prosecution of separate claims is minimal, inasmuch as the claims would be similar and each 

claim, individually, would be too small to warrant individual litigation, thereby making controlling 

the prosecution meaningless in light of the fact that such claims would not be pursued.

115. Upon information and belief, there is no pending litigation involving a member of 

the classes which poses a question of law or fact that would be controverted in this action.

116. This forum presents a desirable location for the litigation because the brewery is 

located in Miami-Dade County, Florida and the beers are sold throughout this District.

117. There are likely minimal difficulties in managing the claim on behalf of the classes 

because the members of the classes are unlikely to have opposing interests.

118. The Plaintiffs have retained counsel that is experienced in handling class actions 

and other complex litigation over the last five years. As a result, the attorneys are qualified and 

experienced in class action litigation and will adequately protect the interests of the class.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 35 of 47
36

COUNT I

Violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act

Florida Statute Section 501.201, et seq.

(Plaintiffs, Individually, and on Behalf of the Classes)

119. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 as though fully 

set forth herein.

120. The Plaintiffs are “consumers” within the meaning of Florida Statute Section 

501.203(7). The Plaintiffs have standing to pursue this claim as they have suffered a concrete and 

tangible injury-in-fact and have lost money or property as a result of defendant’s actions set forth 

above.

121. ABI is engaged in “trade or commerce” within the meaning of Florida Statute 

Section 501.203(8).

122. MBV is engaged in “trade or commerce” within the meaning Florida Statute 

Section 501.203(8).

123. In light of the allegations raised herein, the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of 

the members of the classes, are authorized to bring a claim under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair 

Trade Practices Act, pursuant to Florida Statute Section 501.211, for declaratory relief, injunctive 

relief, actual damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs as provided under Florida Statute Section 

501.2105. The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the members of the classes, seeks all such 

relief herein and are entitled to this relief.

124. In violation of Florida Statute Section 501.204, Defendants have engaged and 

continues to engage in unfair and deceptive acts, including representing their status as a local, 

Miami, craft brewery with Brazilian and Latin American roots and representing the products they 

produced for sale as local-produced craft beers.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 36 of 47
37

125. It was reasonable for consumers, including the Plaintiffs and members of the 

classes, to rely on these representations regarding the craft status, origin, and roots of their 

products. Had the Plaintiffs and members of the classes known the representations were false and 

misleading, they would not have purchased the beers or would not have paid a premium for them.

126. The unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices were likely to deceive reasonable 

consumers, such as the Plaintiffs and the members of the classes, about the true nature of the beers, 

that ABI markets, promotes, advertises, manufactures, distributes, and sells.

127. Defendants’ business practices, as alleged herein, are “unfair” because they offend 

established public policy and are immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, and substantially injurious to

Plaintiffs and consumers. Additionally, Defendants’ conduct is unfair because it violates the 

legislatively declared policies in the FDUTPA. Defendants misled consumers into believing that

its product was a local, craft beer from Miami when it was not and ABI concealed this fact from 

consumers.

128. The violations of the statutory scheme are a proximate cause of injuries suffered by 

the Plaintiffs and members of the classes and, therefore, the Plaintiffs and the classes are entitled 

to actual damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

129. The Plaintiffs and members of the classes are also entitled to injunctive and 

declaratory relief, enjoining Defendants from omitting ABI’s ownership and production of Veza 

Sur and its beers and declaring same unlawful.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 37 of 47
38

COUNT II

Fraudulent Misrepresentation

(Plaintiffs, Individually, and on Behalf of the Classes)

130. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 as though fully 

set forth herein.

131. Defendants have represented and continue to commit false representation of 

material fact regarding Veza Sur’s status as a local, Miami, craft brewery with Brazilian and Latin 

American roots. 

132. Defendants knew that the subject representations were false.

133. The subject representations were made for the purpose of inducing the Plaintiffs 

and members of the classes to purchase the beers and/or to pay a premium price for the beers.

134. As a result of the subject representations, and in justifiable reliance on Defendants’ 

omissions of its relation to Veza Sur and affirmative misrepresentations regarding Veza Sur’s 

status as a local, Miami, craft brewery with Brazilian and Latin American roots, the Plaintiffs and 

members of the classes were induced into purchasing the beers and/or paying a premium price for 

the beers, causing injury to the Plaintiffs and members of the classes.

COUNT III

Unjust Enrichment

(Plaintiffs, Individually, and on Behalf of the Classes)

135. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 as though fully 

set forth herein.

136. The Plaintiffs and members of the classes conferred a benefit on Defendants, to wit: 

the Plaintiffs and members of the class paid monies for the beers.

137. Defendants had knowledge of these transactions.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 38 of 47
39

138. Defendants voluntarily accepted and retained the monetary benefit conferred under 

circumstances that are inequitable and unjust in light of the retention of the benefit without 

payment to the Plaintiffs and members of the classes of any premium paid on account of the acts 

and referenced acts and omissions.

139. Specifically, the Plaintiffs and members of the classes paid a premium for the beers 

based on their beliefs that Veza Sur was a craft brewery, that the beers were locally-produced, that 

Veza Sur was a locally-owned, Wynwood brewery, that Veza Sur was local to Miami, Florida, 

and/or that Veza Sur had Brazilian and Latin American roots.

140. Had the Plaintiffs and members of the classes known that the representations that 

Veza Sur was a craft brewery, that Veza Sur was a locally-owned, Wynwood brewery, that Veza 

Sur was local to Miami, Florida, and/or that Veza Sur had Brazilian and Latin American roots 

were false or inaccurate, they would not have purchased the beers or would have paid less for the 

beers than they paid.

141. As a result, the Plaintiffs and members of the classes have suffered monetary 

damages.

COUNT IV

Breach of Express Warranty, § 672.313, Florida Statutes

(Plaintiffs, Individually, and on Behalf of the Classes)

142. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 as though fully 

set forth herein.

143. The Plaintiffs and members of the classes purchased the beers.

144. Defendants provided an express warranty by affirmation of fact or promise, or 

description of the beers, regarding the craft status, origin, and origin story of the beers.

145. The beers failed to conform to the affirmation or description.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 39 of 47
40

146. The Plaintiffs and member of the classes have suffered money damages as a result 

of these breaches.

COUNT V

Breach of Implied Warranty, § 672.314, Florida Statutes

(Plaintiffs, Individually, and on Behalf of the Classes)

147. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 as though fully 

set forth herein.

148. The Plaintiffs and members of the classes purchased the beers.

149. The Plaintiffs and members of the classes were foreseeable users of the products.

150. A warranty that goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale 

if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Therefore, a warranty of 

merchantability is implied in every sale of beer labeled as a Veza Sur beer to the Plaintiffs and 

members of the classes.

151. To be merchantable, beers were required to conform to the promises or affirmations 

of fact made on the containers or labels. 

152. The beers failed to conform to the affirmation or description.

153. By selling beers falsely labeled in the manner described throughout this complaint, 

Defendants have breached the implied warranty of merchantability with each sale to the Plaintiffs 

and members of the classes.

154. If the Plaintiffs and members of the classes had known of the true nature of the 

beers, they would not have purchased the products or would have not been willing to pay the 

inflated price.

155. The Plaintiffs and member of the classes have suffered money damages as a result 

of these breaches.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 40 of 47
41

COUNT VI

Breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.

(Plaintiffs, Individually, and on Behalf of the Classes)

156. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 as though fully 

set forth herein.

157. The Plaintiffs and members of the classes are consumers as defined under 15 U.S.C. 

§ 2301(3).

158. The beers are consumer products as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1).

159. Defendants are suppliers and warrantors as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301(4) and (5).

160. In connection with the sale of the products, Defendants issue written warranties as 

defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301(6), by making express warranties regarding the “craft” status of the 

beers, as well as the origin and origin stories of the beers and the independence of Veza Sur.

161. The products do not conform to the express warranties because each of the express 

warranties is false and misleading. The beers are not “craft,” the origin is not Miami, Florida and 

Wynwood, Florida, the roots of the beers do not derive from Brazil and Latin America, and Veza 

Sur is not independent of a larger beer conglomerate.

162. By reason of the breaches of warranties, Defendants violated the statutory rights of 

the Plaintiffs and members of the classes pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, thereby 

damaging the Plaintiffs and members of the classes.

163. The Plaintiffs and the members of the classes have suffered damages as a direct and 

proximate result of these breaches because they would not have purchased the beers if they had 

known the truth about the products or they would not have been willing to pay the inflated price.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 41 of 47
42

COUNT VII

Negligent Misrepresentation

(Plaintiffs, Individually, and on Behalf of the Classes)

164. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 as though fully 

set forth herein.

165. Defendants have represented and continue to commit false representation of 

material fact regarding Veza Sur’s status as a local, Miami, craft brewery with Brazilian and Latin 

American roots. 

166. Defendant’s should have known the representations were false.

167. The subject representations were made for the purpose of inducing the Plaintiffs 

and members of the classes to purchase the beers and/or to pay a premium price for the beers.

168. As a result of the subject representations, and in justifiable reliance on Defendant’s 

omissions of its relation to Veza Sur and affirmative misrepresentations regarding Veza Sur’s 

status as a local, Miami, craft brewery with Brazilian and Latin American roots, the Plaintiffs and 

members of the classes were induced into purchasing the beers and/or paying a premium price for 

the beers, causing injury to the Plaintiffs and members of the classes.

COUNT VIII

Intentional False Advertising, § 817.44, Florida Statutes

(Plaintiffs, Individually, and on Behalf of the Classes)

169. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 as though fully 

set forth herein.

170. Defendants have offered for sale or issued invitations for offers for sale beers that 

were “craft,” local to Wynwood, Florida and Miami, Florida, and with roots in Brazil and Latin 

America, by placing or causing to be placed before the general public and advertisement describing 

beers that were “craft,” local to Wynwood, Florida and Miami, Florida, and with roots in Brazil 

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 42 of 47
43

and Latin America, as part of a plan or scheme with the intent to sell beers that did not meet those 

qualifications.

171. The Plaintiffs and members of the classes relied on the advertisements in 

purchasing the beers and/or paying a price premium for the beers.

172. The Plaintiffs and the members of the classes have suffered damages as a direct and 

proximate result of these actions because they would not have purchased the beers if they had 

known the truth about the products or they would not have been willing to pay the inflated price.

COUNT IX

Misleading Advertising, § 817.41, Florida Statutes

(Plaintiffs, Individually, and on Behalf of the Classes)

173. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 as though fully 

set forth herein.

174. Defendants have disseminated or caused to have been made or disseminated before 

the general public of the state, or a portion thereof, a misleading advertisement, including 

statements made, or disseminated, in oral, written, electronic, or printed form or otherwise, to or 

before the public, or any portion thereof, as to the fact that the beers were “craft,” local to 

Wynwood, Florida and Miami, Florida, and with roots in Brazil and Latin America, which were 

known or through the exercise of reasonable care or investigation could or might have been 

ascertained to be untrue or misleading.90

175. The advertisements were so made or disseminated with the intent or purpose, either 

directly or indirectly, of selling or disposing of personal property or services of a nature or to 

90 Florida Statute 500.115 states, “An advertisement of a food is deemed to be false if it is false or 

misleading in any particular.”

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 43 of 47
44

induce the public and the Plaintiffs and the class members to enter into any obligation relating to 

such property or services.

176. The Plaintiffs and members of the classes paid a price premium for the beers.

177. The Plaintiffs and the members of the classes have suffered damages as a direct and 

proximate result of these actions because they would not have purchased the beers if they had 

known the truth about the products or they would not have been willing to pay the inflated price.

COUNT X

Civil Conspiracy

(Plaintiffs, Individually, and on Behalf of the Classes)

178. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 as though fully 

set forth herein.

179. Defendants conspired to engage in the false or misleading advertising alleged 

herein, violation of sections 817.41 and 817.44, Florida Statutes.

180. Defendants executed the overt act of engaging in the described advertisements.

181. The Plaintiffs and the members of the class have suffered damages as a result of 

the acts performed through the conspiracy, including the purchase of beers they would not 

otherwise have purchased or the payment of a price premium for the beers.

COUNT XI

False Advertising and Misbranding, § 500.04, Florida Statutes

(Plaintiffs, Individually, and on Behalf of the Classes)

182. The Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 through 118 as though fully 

set forth herein.

183. Defendants have disseminated representations in a manner or means other than 

labeling, for the purpose of inducing, or which is likely to induce, directly or indirectly, the 

purchase of food within the meaning of section 500.03(1)(n)1, Florida Statutes

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 44 of 47
45

184. Those representations were false or misleading in any particular because they were 

misleading in their designation of the “craft” status of Veza Sur beers, Veza Sur’s origin of 

Wynwood, Florida or Miami, Florida, and Veza Sur’s Brazilian and Latin American roots.

185. Defendants have also misbranded the beers by labeling them in a manner that is 

false or misleading in any particular. 

186. That branding was false or misleading because they were misleading in their 

designation of the “craft” status of Veza Sur beers, Veza Sur’s origin of Wynwood, Florida or 

Miami, Florida, and Veza Sur’s Brazilian and Latin American roots.

187. The Plaintiffs and members of the classes relied on the representations in deciding 

to purchase the beers or to pay a price premium for the purchases thereof.

188. The Plaintiffs and the members of the classes have suffered damages as a direct and 

proximate result of these actions because they would not have purchased the beers if they had 

known the truth about the products or they would not have been willing to pay the inflated price.

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 45 of 47
46

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the members of the classes, 

demand judgment as follows:

(a) Declaring to be a proper class action maintainable pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 23 and declaring Plaintiffs and their counsel to be representatives of the Class.

(b) Enjoining Defendants from continuing in the acts and practices described above.

(c) Awarding all damages sustained by Plaintiffs and the Class as a result of the Defendant’s 

conduct, together with pre-judgment interest.

(d) Finding that Defendants have been unjustly enriched and requiring it to refund all unjust 

benefits to Plaintiffs and the Class, together with pre-judgment interest.

(e) Awarding Plaintiffs and the Class damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, attorneys’ 

fees, costs, and expenses.

(f) Awarding such further relief as the Court deems necessary and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the members of the classes, hereby demand a 

trial by jury of all issues so triable.

Dated: August 14, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

TWIG, TRADE, & TRIBUNAL, PLLC TWIG, TRADE, & TRIBUNAL, PLLC 

1512 E Broward Blvd, Suite 204A 1512 E Broward Blvd, Suite 204A

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Telephone: (954)-472-5001 Telephone: (754)-900-8944

Facsimile: (888)-444-7087 Facsimile: (888)-444-7087

Service Email: service@twiglaw.com Service Email: service@twiglaw.com

/s/ Joshua H. Lida /s/ Terra L. Sickler

JOSHUA H. LIDA, ESQ. TERRA L. SICKLER, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 117529 Florida Bar No.: 94317

josh@twiglaw.com tsickler@twiglaw.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 46 of 47
47

TWIG, TRADE, & TRIBUNAL, PLLC KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A.

1512 E Broward Blvd, Suite 204A P.O. Box 3396

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Tampa, FL 33601-3396

Telephone: (954)540-2755 Telephone: (813) 229-1118

Facsimile: (888)-444-7087 Facsimile: (813) 221-6750

Service Email: service@twiglaw.com

/s/ Morgan L. Weinstein /s/ Katherine Earle Yanes

MORGAN L. WEINSTEIN, ESQ KATHERINE EARLE YANES, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 87796 Florida Bar No.: 159727

morgan@twiglaw.com kyanes@kmf-law.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Plaintiffs

KYNES, MARKMAN & FELMAN, P.A.

P.O. Box 3396

Tampa, FL 33601-3396

Telephone: (813) 229-1118

Facsimile: (813) 221-6750

/s/ Gus M. Centrone

GUS M. CENTRONE, ESQ.

Florida Bar No.: 30151

gcentrone@kmf-law.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 1:20-cv-23392-BB Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/14/2020 Page 47 of 47