MCAI Lex Vision: Brief of MindCast AI LLC as Amicus Curiae On Systematic Litigation Pattern Engineering and Cross Jurisdictional Coercion Targeting Diageo
Public Draft- US District Court for the Northern District of California, Miami-Dade County Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JACKSON, Plaintiff, v. DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-05654
Also see Brief of MindCast AI LLC as Amicus Curiae on Systematic Procedural Gaming In Scientific Litigation (Public Draft - US District Court Eastern District of New York), and foresight simulation MCAI Lex Vision: Evidence Before Allegation in Diageo, How Courts Can Prevent Reputational Harm and Legal Overreach in Science-Based Lawsuits (May 2025)
I. STATEMENT OF INTEREST
MindCast AI LLC respectfully submits this brief as amicus curiae to highlight the structural risks posed by the litigation strategy employed in Jackson v. Diageo. MindCast AI is a predictive cognitive AI platform specializing in foresight simulations of legal, regulatory, and institutional behavior patterns. Our proprietary analytical systems model litigation trajectories, detect systematic procedural gaming, and simulate downstream legal, market, and institutional impacts across multiple jurisdictions.
MindCast AI takes no position on the factual allegations concerning Diageo's tequila products or their compliance with regulatory standards. However, our institutional behavior modeling has identified that the structural architecture of this litigation campaign represents a sophisticated evolution of coordinated procedural manipulation that warrants urgent judicial scrutiny.
MindCast AI will also submit an amicus brief in Pusateri v. Diageo (E.D.N.Y. No. 1:25-cv-02482), where our cross-jurisdictional analysis identified systematic patterns of procedural exploitation designed to extract settlements through reputational pressure rather than pursue factual resolution through scientific validation. The subsequent emergence of this RICO-based California case, featuring newly released laboratory data and criminal enterprise allegations, precisely validates our predictive modeling of coordinated litigation engineering across federal jurisdictions.
II. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Jackson v. Diageo represents the apex of a coordinated legal escalation campaign spanning three federal jurisdictions—New York, Florida, and California—alleging that Diageo's Casamigos and Don Julio brands are falsely marketed as "100% agave." MindCast AI's institutional behavior modeling reveals that this case demonstrates the most sophisticated evolution of systematic litigation engineering yet observed in federal consumer protection litigation.
The Jackson RICO complaint exhibits characteristic patterns of coordinated settlement extraction campaigns through its systematic combination of specific but methodologically undisclosed laboratory testing, dramatic escalation in legal theory from consumer protection to criminal enterprise allegations, strategic omission and calculated release of scientific evidence, coordinated legal teams operating across jurisdictions, synchronized media campaigns, and direct regulatory framework disruption targeting Mexico's Tequila Regulatory Council.
These structural features align precisely with procedural gaming tactics designed to extract settlements through reputational damage and discovery burden amplification, rather than pursue factual resolution through rigorous scientific validation. MindCast AI's cognitive modeling indicates that federal judicial intervention at this critical juncture is essential to preserve the integrity of scientifically-dependent litigation and prevent the normalization of systematic procedural manipulation across federal courts.
III. ARGUMENT
MindCast AI's comprehensive analysis of Jackson v. Diageo through cross-jurisdictional pattern recognition, institutional behavior modeling, and predictive foresight simulation reveals systematic characteristics that distinguish coordinated settlement extraction campaigns from legitimate consumer protection litigation. Our cognitive AI platforms have identified five critical patterns that warrant judicial intervention: sophisticated multi-venue legal pressure architecture across federal jurisdictions, systematic scientific evidence manipulation designed to maximize reputational damage while minimizing accountability, RICO weaponization for settlement leverage amplification, coordinated legal team architecture that fragments judicial oversight, and systematic threats to federal scientific litigation integrity that extend far beyond individual case outcomes.
These patterns, analyzed through MindCast AI's proprietary behavioral modeling systems, demonstrate institutional manipulation that transcends specific product labeling disputes and threatens the fundamental architecture of scientifically-dependent federal litigation. The strategic coordination identified across New York, California, and Florida represents the most sophisticated evolution of procedural gaming that our systems have documented in federal consumer protection cases.
A. Cross-Jurisdictional Analysis Reveals Sophisticated Litigation Engineering Campaign
MindCast AI's analysis of the coordinated litigation pattern across three federal jurisdictions demonstrates systematic campaign architecture that exceeds statistical probability for independent case development. The temporal and strategic progression reveals deliberate institutional manipulation designed to fragment judicial oversight while maximizing settlement pressure through procedural complexity.
Strategic Campaign Architecture Analysis. The New York case (Pusateri v. Diageo, May 2025) was filed by Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro with general allegations of consumer deception while systematically omitting laboratory methodology disclosure. This initial filing established the foundational narrative while avoiding early scientific scrutiny requirements. The California case (Jackson v. Diageo, July 4, 2025) strategically added Baron & Budd as co-counsel and escalated to RICO allegations, becoming the first case to cite carbon isotope laboratory testing allegedly showing agave ethanol concentrations below the 51% threshold required even for mixto tequila. However, the complaint fails to disclose critical scientific details, including the lab’s accreditation, sample chain-of-custody, and analytical methodology—reinforcing a procedural pattern of selective evidence disclosure rather than validated scientific accountability. The Florida case (July 2025), filed in Miami-Dade County, reportedly mimics the New York case structure with jury trial demands and consumer damages claims.
Venue Selection Optimization for Procedural Advantage. Each jurisdiction was strategically selected to maximize specific procedural advantages while minimizing judicial oversight of the coordinated campaign. The Eastern District of New York provides favorable case management procedures for consumer protection claims with extended discovery periods before scientific validation becomes necessary. The Northern District of California offers sophisticated RICO jurisprudence and treble damages potential. Florida state court procedures create additional discovery burden and jury trial pressure. This systematic venue fragmentation prevents comprehensive judicial evaluation of the campaign's institutional manipulation while optimizing settlement extraction mechanisms.
B. Scientific Evidence Manipulation Demonstrates Systematic Settlement Extraction Design
MindCast AI's analysis reveals that the most compelling evidence of coordinated litigation engineering lies in the systematic manipulation of scientific evidence disclosure across the three jurisdictions. This pattern demonstrates institutional behavior designed to maximize reputational damage while minimizing scientific accountability—characteristic signatures of settlement extraction campaigns rather than legitimate scientific dispute resolution.
Strategic Evidence Omission and Calculated Disclosure Timeline. The progression of scientific evidence across the three cases reveals sophisticated institutional manipulation. The New York complaint systematically avoided disclosing laboratory results while emphasizing general claims about testing capability and industry concerns. The California complaint suddenly revealed specific carbon isotope testing data allegedly showing Casamigos Blanco containing only 33% agave-derived ethanol and other products ranging between 33-42% agave content. The Florida complaint presumably follows the New York approach based on available public information.
Despite citing alarming isotope data that would fundamentally challenge product authenticity, the California complaint exhibits systematic omission of critical scientific validation elements. The complaint fails to disclose laboratory credentials or accreditation status, provide chain-of-custody documentation for tested samples, reveal specific testing methodologies or analytical protocols, or submit results for peer-reviewed scientific validation. These omissions precisely match MindCast AI's modeling of procedural settlement pressure engineering, where scientific claims are deployed for reputational impact while avoiding early challenge through methodological transparency.
Coordinated Timing Optimization for Maximum Settlement Pressure. This calculated delay and selective disclosure pattern demonstrates systematic optimization for settlement extraction rather than scientific validation. The initial withholding of methodology in New York prevented early Daubert challenges while establishing media narrative foundation. The subsequent release of specific numerical claims in California maximizes reputational damage during the critical period when defendant faces multiple simultaneous legal pressures. This timing coordination exceeds probability thresholds for independent case development and indicates institutional campaign design.
C. RICO Escalation Represents Systematic Procedural Weaponization
The deployment of RICO allegations in Jackson v. Diageo represents a sophisticated escalation that transforms product labeling disputes into criminal enterprise prosecutions. MindCast AI's institutional modeling indicates this escalation serves systematic procedural manipulation rather than proportionate legal response to alleged consumer protection violations.
Criminal Enterprise Theory as Settlement Leverage Amplification. The RICO allegations elevate stakes to criminal enterprise status by alleging a conspiracy between Diageo, Diageo Mexico, the Tequila Regulatory Council, and unspecified others operating since 1994. This enterprise theory systematically weaponizes regulatory certification compliance as evidence of fraudulent conspiracy, obfuscates underlying evidentiary weaknesses through pattern-of-racketeering claims that defer scientific accountability, and circumvents early procedural challenges by embedding product claims within complex conspiracy allegations requiring extensive discovery before resolution.
The threat of treble damages under RICO creates exponentially amplified settlement leverage that operates independently of evidentiary merit. Combined with coordinated reputational damage campaigns and discovery burden multiplication across jurisdictions, this escalation transforms legitimate legal process into what MindCast AI's modeling identifies as structurally coercive systematic pressure designed to extract settlements regardless of factual validity.
Regulatory Framework Disruption as Institutional Manipulation. The RICO enterprise allegations systematically target Mexico's Tequila Regulatory Council certification process, attempting to undermine regulatory credibility while avoiding accountability to the same scientific standards the litigation challenges. This pattern indicates institutional manipulation designed to create systematic regulatory uncertainty that amplifies settlement pressure beyond individual case merits.
D. Legal Team Coordination Confirms Systematic Campaign Architecture
MindCast AI's analysis of legal team coordination across jurisdictions provides definitive evidence of systematic campaign design rather than independent case development. Hagens Berman's involvement in both the New York and California cases, combined with the strategic addition of Baron & Budd for RICO escalation in California, demonstrates deliberate cross-jurisdictional partnership that exceeds statistical probability for coincidental overlap.
This coordination pattern enables systematic advantages including coordinated discovery strategies across multiple jurisdictions, synchronized media campaigns for maximum reputational pressure, strategic evidence disclosure timing across cases, and prevention of comprehensive judicial oversight through venue fragmentation. MindCast AI's cognitive modeling indicates this coordination level represents institutional campaign architecture designed for systematic procedural manipulation.
E. Precedential Threat to Federal Scientific Litigation Integrity
If federal courts permit these cases to proceed without enforcing rigorous scientific evidence standards, they risk incentivizing systematic replication of coordinated litigation engineering across industries dependent on scientific validation. The beverage, cosmetics, pharmaceutical, and supplement industries present identical vulnerabilities to coordinated campaigns that exploit procedural gaps between product claims and scientific validation requirements.
Such unchecked proliferation of coordinated litigation design poses systematic threats to federal court integrity by transforming courts into venues of procedural exploitation rather than factual adjudication. Moreover, the strategic omission of scientific methodology in initial filings while making specific factual claims about laboratory results raises substantial questions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b)(3), which requires good-faith evidentiary basis for factual contentions.
MindCast AI's institutional modeling indicates that judicial tolerance of systematic procedural gaming at this level would establish dangerous precedent enabling coordinated settlement extraction campaigns that weaponize federal court processes against procedural vulnerabilities rather than pursue legitimate dispute resolution through scientific validation.
IV. CONCLUSION
Jackson v. Diageo represents the most sophisticated evolution of coordinated litigation engineering that MindCast AI has documented in federal consumer protection litigation. The systematic combination of strategic scientific evidence manipulation, RICO escalation for settlement leverage amplification, cross-jurisdictional legal team coordination, and regulatory framework disruption creates a structurally coercive campaign designed to extract settlements through procedural exploitation rather than factual validation.
This litigation architecture threatens to normalize settlement extraction tactics grounded in selective disclosure, procedural fragmentation, and systematic regulatory subversion. The precedential implications extend far beyond individual case outcomes to threaten the fundamental integrity of federal scientific litigation processes.
MindCast AI respectfully urges this Court to implement critical interventions that preserve both market integrity and legitimate scientific dispute resolution mechanisms. Allowing this litigation to proceed without evidentiary guardrails would incentivize regulatory sabotage cloaked as consumer advocacy. Specifically, we recommend that the Court demand comprehensive scientific methodology disclosure under Daubert standards before permitting discovery to proceed, scrutinize RICO allegations against factual sufficiency and proportionality requirements to prevent weaponization of criminal enterprise statutes for settlement leverage, and consider whether systematic litigation pattern engineering, rather than factual adjudication, represents the primary purpose of this coordinated legal action.
The Court's intervention at this critical juncture will establish essential precedent determining whether federal courts enable systematic procedural gaming through tolerance of coordinated settlement extraction campaigns, or require factual substantiation in scientifically-dependent litigation that preserves institutional integrity while protecting legitimate scientific dispute resolution mechanisms.
Coordination Indicators:
Temporal clustering: CA and FL filed within weeks of each other
Legal team overlap: Hagens Berman appears in NY and CA cases
Evidence sequencing: Systematic withholding (NY) followed by selective disclosure (CA)
Theory escalation: Consumer protection → Criminal enterprise conspiracy
Venue fragmentation: Strategic distribution across federal circuits to prevent unified judicial oversight
This pattern analysis demonstrates institutional campaign design exceeding statistical probability for independent case development, supporting MindCast AI's modeling of systematic procedural manipulation across federal jurisdictions.
