What To Know: The Unilever Class Action Lawsuit
Last week, a Consumer Class Action was filed against Unilever for allegedly misleading consumers into thinking that they are getting more value for their money with their purchase of Dove, Degree, and Axe stick deodorants and antiperspirants. The Unilever lawsuit claims that the products actually only contain around 40% less than what the entire packaging would suggest.
Furthermore, the complaint alleges that the opaque packaging prevents potential buyers from seeing the inside and getting an accurate image of how much product the container really holds inside.
You can refer to the case with the name: Krause-Pettai et al v. Unilever United States, Inc., et al, Case No. 3:20cv1672, S.D. CA.
Does these allegations sound familiar to you? If so, contact us today!
Here’s what we know about the Unilever Class Action:
The Unilever Class Action Complaint states that “the packaging containing the antiperspirant and/or deodorant was fraudulent and misleading because the packaging had a significant amount (approximately 40%) of “nonfunctional slack fill.” This slack fill was not perceptible to the consumer due to the opaque coloring of the packaging and because of the almost imperceptible labeling of the weight of the deodorant, each and/or both of which purposefully mislead consumers into believing they were getting much more volume of deodorant than the size of the package portrayed.
This misleading packaging was an inducement for consumers to buy these Products as compared to competitor’s products, and in fact, consumers relied upon the size of the packaging as a gauge to how much product they were receiving. The misleading packaging did induce Plaintiffs and the putative class members to purchase the Products because they believed they were getting more product than was actually in the package. Defendant knew they were misleading consumers in this way and did it purposefully to mislead in order to gain a larger market share for the Products… “Slack filling . . . is an unlawful trade practice. For a seller to package goods in containers which unknown to the consumer are appreciably over-sized, or in containers so shaped as to create the optical illusion of being larger than conventionally shaped containers of equal or greater capacity, is as much a deceptive practice, and an unfair method of competition, as if the seller was to make an explicit false statement of the quantity or dimension of his goods. . . .” (Hobby Industry Assc. v. Younger (1980) 101 CA3d 358, 367 citing, Papercraft Corp. (1963) 63 F.T.C. 1965, 1992; Burry Biscuit Corp. (1941) 33 F.T.C. 89; and Marlborough Laboratories Inc. (1941) 32 F.T.C. 1014.).”
A full copy of the Unilever Class Action Complaint can be found below:
Editor’s note on the Unilever Class Action Lawsuit:
This piece is written about the recent Unilever Lawsuit. If you are considered eligible to be among the class of consumers described in the class action, you may eventually be able to participate in receiving any compensation the court may award.
If you believe that what is alleged in the Unilever class action has affected you, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us. We’d be happy to help you take a step in the right direction, fight this issue, and better enable you to join the consumer class action. If interested, please send an email to Outreach@ConsiderTheConsumer.com, find us on Twitter or Facebook, or even connect with us directly on our website! We look forward to hearing from you all.
Similarly, please check out our current list of Class Actions and Class Action Investigations, here.
Interested in articles like these? Become a subscriber below!