Mikimoto Cultured Pearls No More Than Beads Coated in ‘Paper-Thin’ Nacre, Class Action Alleges

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit alleges the cultured pearls originated by Mikimoto are of a much poorer quality than the company represents. 

The 26-page complaint claims that the nacre, i.e. the layers of lustrous white coating generated by mollusks and known otherwise as mother of pearl, in Mikimoto pearls is “uncommonly thin” and particularly vulnerable to wear, which can cause the pearls to deteriorate prematurely. The suit alleges that consumers who buy Mikimoto pearls are paying a premium price not for a thicker layer of mother of pearl but rather for “a large-diameter bead with no intrinsic value.” 

As the lawsuit tells it, although consumers who buy Mikimoto pearls believe that they are paying for “the rich, warm melodies of a pearl,” almost 95 percent of their purchase is comprised of only the bead used to “seed” mollusks rather than the nacre material that makes up naturally occurring pearls. The filing alleges that the “unacceptably poor quality” of Mikimoto’s cultured pearls stems from the financial benefit the company receives for cutting short the amount of time its pearls spend growing in mollusks. 

The complaint describes the Mikimoto pearls as a “wasted extravagance,” contending that consumers would not have bought the defendant’s pearls at the price they did had they known “the truth about their actual make-up.” 

According to the case, the value of a pearl is substantially affected by the thickness of its nacre. The less nacre a pearl has, the less time it will take for the pearl to lose its luster, the suit summarizes. 

The complaint relays that the recent costs and risks of pearl cultivation have placed financial pressure on producers such as Mikimoto to reduce the amount of time a pearl is allowed to remain inside of a mollusk’s shell and accumulate nacre. 

The lawsuit alleges that although Mikimoto, whose founder is said to have been the first to stimulate the growth of pearls in mollusks through human intervention, positions itself as a company who operates well within the traditional standards of pearl quality control, this “self-aggrandizing representation[]” fails under scientific scrutiny. 

Further, the case claims that the seemingly larger pearls for which Mikimoto charges a premium price are only larger beads coated with a thin layer of nacre. 

“Rather than nucleating its mollusks with a smaller bead and waiting for a substantial layer of nacre to accumulate, Mikimoto creates the illusion of such by using larger beads that need less nacre to grow into pearls of the desired size,” the suit alleges. “These pearls can then be harvested quickly and sold at a premium to unsuspecting consumers who will learn the truth only much later. This is how Mikimoto reduces costs while increasing revenue.” 

From there, the case concedes that although some consumers may prefer to buy lower-quality pearls at a discounted price, this is not the market to which Mikimoto caters.

“The only reason consumers are willing to pay Mikimoto prices is their assumption that Mikimoto pearls are top of the line pearls and that Mikimoto does not compromise on quality,” the complaint says. “Indeed, the very price tag of Mikimoto pearls is an implicit promise of a top-quality pearl with a nacre thickness that exceeds industry standards. But the nacre on Mikimoto pearls in fact falls short of industry standards.” 

The lawsuit looks to cover all persons or entities in the United States who bought Mikimoto cultured pearls during the applicable statute of limitations period. 

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.