Some people call it over-packaging, slack-fill, or deceptive packaging. No matter what the name, it describes a product’s packaging that is deliberately designed to make the contents seem greater than they really are.
Last week, district attorneys from four California counties entered into a settlement agreement with CVS after they charged that the pharmacy chain misled consumers by misrepresenting product sizes or quantity. CVS was said to have used packaging that was “oversized and [with] non-functional slack-fill and/or false sidewalls and/or false bottoms. The company agreed to pay over $225,000 to settle these charges.
*MOUSE PRINT:
CVS issued a statement to KFSN, the television station that first broke the story:
“CVS/pharmacy has entered into an agreement with District Attorneys in a few California counties to resolve allegations concerning the packaging size of certain CVS Brand products. CVS/pharmacy is committed to ensuring that its product packaging is sufficient in size to accommodate pertinent information about the product. CVS Brand products, including packaging, are generally designed to be similar to the national brand equivalents. While manufacturers generally choose the container size, CVS/pharmacy has agreed to redesign the packaging of certain CVS Brand items.”
We told you about CVS selling vitamins in oversized packages over a year ago. Using our patent-pending super-duper x-ray device (a flashlight) we determined that a bottle of CVS vitamin D softgels only occupied about 25% of the space in a five-inch high bottle:
*MOUSE PRINT:
The current action against CVS focused on various store brand anti-wrinkle creams they sell:
- Accelerated Wrinkle Repair Moisturizer, Day
- Accelerated Wrinkle Repair Moisturizer, Night
- Age Refine Eye Cream, 0.5 ounces
- Age-Refine Day Cream, 2.5 ounces
- Anti-Wrinkle And Firming Cream
- Healthy Complexion Anti-Wrinkle Moisturizer Acne Treatment Cream, Clear Skin
- Frizz-Defy Hair Serum
- Moisturizing Face Cream Hair Remover
- Preventin -AT 2 in 1 Dark Circle And Wrinkle Eye Treatment
- Maximum Scalp Relief
The agreement allows CVS to continue manufacturing the products until January 1, and continue selling them for two years.
They need to go after toilet paper people next. The way they have increased the diameter of the inner cardboard roll. It is silly now how large it is and deceptive to make you think the roll size hasn’t “shrunk”.
Biggest scam line of our lifetime: “Contents may settle during shipping.” Balderdash. Vibrate the dam* box of cereal, grain, baking soda, laundry powder, whatever on the assembly line! There now, THAT’s settled.
Are we buying the bottle or the contents? Was the bottle accurately marked with the correct number of vitamins? Its called reading….
It’s probably not the intent of the CA DA, but this hopefully have an small impact on environmental cost: using less material for the packaging. To me, it’s not much of a cheating-the-consumer issue. You’re getting 200 softgels as the example above shows, no matter how big or small the container is, it’s still 200 count. Some pills are just larger or smaller than other.
I don’t like bulk or wasted material in packaging, so I’m please they’ll be redesigning their packaging. I realize manufactures will often choose commercially available bottles or boxes for cost savings, though I’d be surprised if smaller sizes aren’t available. However, due to quantity, it may actually be the case that a jumbo bottle is cheaper than an appropriately sized smaller bottle. (I have no evidence this is the case.) When the product is accurately labeled with the contents and quantity, the size is more of an annoyance than a problem. In the case of pills, I really don’t want those pills each larger so that they fill the big bottle completely!
I don’t get it. No matter how large the package is the label should still accurately say how much product is inside. A bottle that is twice the size of another can have the same amount of product, but if they are both labeled with the same mass of the same product then there isn’t really a deception. Has anyone seen a bag of chips lately? Those things are usually half full at best.
Are retailers seriously going to be charged because consumers don’t read labels? What more can the government force retailers to do?
For example. What if the CVS package above changed to 900 softgels but they all had the same total potency of the 300 softgels currently in the package? Sure, the consumer would have more softgels, but if they would have read the label they would know that it takes 3 softgels to get the same effect that used to be in 1 softgel.
I can see why the large bottle can be misleading, but I really only concern myself with what the package actually says.
Consumer Reports used to have an award given to manufacturers called the “Golden Cocoon Award,” given to the worst offenders of oversized packaging. I don’t think they do it any longer, but if they did, CVS would surely be a winner.
Why pick on CVS? Most manufacturers are guilty of this one. As long as the bottle contains the proper quantity, there should not be a problem. Now, CVS will adjust the cost of their product to compensate for the re-packaging of the product. Design new labels, boxes (if used), etc. Maybe the required information (mandated by other state and federal rules) won’t fit on the new bottle. What are they to do then? Fold out label? Put it in a box and print the information on a sheet of paper that will be ignored anyway?
This should have been considered a nuisance lawsuit and thrown out of court.
Well Alan the bottle does have a cost to make, but the bottle must be super cheap to make.
I say this bottle can be much smaller.
$225,000 is pocket change for CVS.
Why go after CVS only? Tylenol, Motrin, Bayer, and especially Move Free – all their bottles are oversized. When I buy a bottle of 80 Move Free tablets, I transfer them into a bottle that holds 40 & there is still room. I see these containers as pollutants besides being misleading. How many people actually recycle their plastics?
A number of people have noted that the package states the weight. What they fail to understand is that consumer laws are made to protect the most vulnerable among us. And think of this:company personnel sit around a conference table and try to come up with ways to fake us out of our hard-earned money. That is, in a word, shameful!
HMC, I think if a consumer can’t read and interpret the label then the system has already failed them. That is not the manufacturer’s fault. There is a limit to how vulnerable someone can be before they are just considered negligent of themselves.
The most CVS should be punished with is a fine for wasting plastic. Anybody that can read shouldn’t be fooled by that container.
It’s unfortunate that our intrepid consumer reporter chose to illustrate this issue with a bottle of pills. As many people have already pointed out here 200 pills is 200 pills no matter what size the bottle is. However all the products covered by this action are creams and lotions. Understanding what the measurement of a liquid or semi-liquid means is a little trickier than counting pills.
There is also one other reason why sellers may want a larger package other than misleading the customer and that is so the package isn’t so small that it disappears on the shelf or slips too easily into a purse or pocket.
Wayne R, you write: “Anybody that can read shouldn’t be fooled by that container.” Some people cannot read for a variety of reasons, e.g., they may be new to the country and have not yet learned to read English. Or they may have three kids in tow who are driving them crazy and they forget or just don’t check the weight. Or, or, or.
Strange how many ardent supporters of [edited] big business come to this site.
The ones that concern me are things like canned produce. Sold by weight, they can add more water and less produce without changing the label. There is an awful lot of water before the peas on a cheap can nowadays. Product like mayonnaise used to be sold by weight, suddenly it’s by volume. They can (and do) whip in more and more air without adjusting the label. Some mayonnaise is fluffier than shaving cream now.
I agree with Wayne R,
“There is a limit to how vulnerable someone can be before they are just considered negligent of themselves.”
Al H, consider that the manufacturer is also supposed to list the number of servings of the food in the package. If half of the package is water weight then the consumer should still be able to calculate how much produce is actually there. I don’t think Manufacturers are able to count excess water as a “serving”
I don’t want to give manufacturers a pass here, but consumers should be responsible for some of this stuff as well. The manufacturer-consumer relationship should not be a one way street. As long as a package is labeled properly the consumer has the responsibility on understanding what they are buying.
When a package is labeled improperly…then there is a problem.
I don’t think consumers are responsible for not noticing something especially when the manufacturers are deliberately trying to trip them up. I grew up in a world where consumers expected business to have some ethics and to a greater degree than today we were protected from deliberate abuses. What disturbs me is the new mentality, especially among younger people, that being scr*wed over is par for the course and somehow OK to expect from big business. This goes against every principle I have. It disturbs me because what kind of people are these that think being deceived is OK and it’s our responsibility not to be deceived. That’s like saying, well, if you didn’t want your wallet to be picked, you shouldn’t have put it in your back pocket, so it’s YOUR fault if you get ripped off. That to me is just screwy logic.
HMC – Add to your list of reasons one might not be able to read the fine print being over 50 and for whatever reason not having your reading glasses handy. I can’t count how many times I have been snagged by the tiny print precisely because I misread it due to not being able to see it. And no, when I’m shopping I don’t necessarily have a pair of reading glasses handy nor enough light or time to process and unravel the often convoluted information being put forth in that fine print. Then again, being difficult to figure out is purely intentional on the part of manufacturers and stores too. Recently, JC Penney has been getting into the act with the confusing fine print on the bottom of its coupons. They bank on the fact that shoppers will throw up their hands and just accept whatever they get without question once they get rung up at the register, even when they thought they would get a better deal.
I don’t think I saw this response previously, but it is my understanding that it is all about shelf presence. The bigger the package the better the chance the consumer will spot it first. Someone talked about cereal boxes, but all boxes fall into this category. Anyone ever buy computer software or games off the shelf (back in the good old days) just to discover that all that gigantic box had inside it was a floppy disk or CD? Vendors in grocery stores fight over shelf space, so why not in the pharmacy as well?