A while back, a California consumer sued the makers of Coppertone sunscreen for deceptive practices alleging she overpaid for their product.
In her complaint, the consumer said she bought Coppertone Sport Mineral “Face” at twice the price of the regular version believing it was specially formulated for use on one’s face. The label said “Won’t Run Into Eyes” and “Oil Free.” Sometime thereafter she learned that the “face” product was identical to the regular Coppertone Sport Mineral product but cost twice as much.
[Not to scale… Enlarged for readability]*MOUSE PRINT:
Her lawyers assert:
Based on the prominent “FACE” marking and face-specific representations on the front label of the Coppertone Sport Mineral FACE products, reasonable consumers believe that the lotion is specifically formulated for use on the face. In other words, reasonable consumers believe that there is something different about the Coppertone Sport Mineral FACE lotion that makes it better suited for use on the face, as compared to regular Coppertone Sport Mineral lotion.
The pricing of Coppertone Sport Mineral FACE reinforces this reasonable belief. Per ounce, Coppertone Sport Mineral FACE costs twice as much as regular Coppertone Sport Mineral.
In short, Defendant is tricking consumers into thinking they are buying sunscreen lotion specially formulated for the face, when in reality, they are just buying Defendant’s regular Sport Mineral sunscreen in a smaller—and far more expensive bottle.
For its part, the company admits that the formulation of the two products is identical but marketed in two different packages. They say everything they state on the package is absolutely true, there is no deception, and the case should be dismissed.
The case has not been resolved yet.
We have previously reported how Excedrin sells several versions of its pain relievers all with the exact same ingredients but markets them for various different uses, such as for migraines or menstrual cramps.
So what do you think? Is it deceptive for a company to market the exact same product in two different ways, and charge twice the price for the one presented as a specialty use?
This is an ugly deception and marketing strategy that should not be used. It is like selling a gallon if milk in a regular container and selljng the same thing with a label stating “Special milk for your morning breakfast…”
Are the containers the same physical size? The photo seems to indicate that they are.
Alana… I have not seen the products in person, but the face version has half the number of ounces. Looking at similar box sizes at Amazon, it appears the face product is in a smaller box… but their packages dimensions shown don’t match the weights of the product being described. But it appears Coppertone non-face is an inch and half longer.
It’s exactly what I would expect from Pharmaceutical and health care products. They lie for as long as they can get away with it, especially when it comes to overcharging…in this county anyway
FREEDOM of control or regulation, each to fight for him/herself..
This is true for lots of skin care, hygiene and otc health products. Always has been. That’s one reason why it’s always been a good idea to actually read the info on the labels. The problem is that studying labels is becoming close to impossible now that stores are placing these products under lock and key. I suppose when you finally get a clerk to come and open up the case you could hold the clerk up and take your sweet time reading the label info and asking to look at other products at the same time, but this uncomfortable situation really isn’t conducive to actually comprehending what you are looking at.
the problem is not the clerk but the thieves who steal everything not under lock and key..holding up the clerk brings more tension…
I wasn’t blaming the clerk.
Is it deceptive? Of course! Although if this lawsuit succeeds it might open the door to untold thousands of others, since this is such a common practice.
Apart from the duplicity, this is anti-consumer and nasty in several other ways. It makes decision-making that much harder — you need to waste time evaluating and comparing essentially identical products from the same manufacturer. And the major manufacturers grab up an outrageous amount of shelf space selling similar or identical products in dozens of different ways, squeezing out smaller companies and specialty products.
I believe it is a deceptive and very common part of so-called “line extension” marketing. It is done with processed human and pet foods as well, though often with a slight tweaking of formula which is of no consequence other than to defend against legal risk.
Deception. No doubt. How unethical. With so many things to worry about already, it’s frustrating how we have to scrutinize previously trusted brands at our expense.
Why isn’t the company filing a counter suit against her for buying the 5oz bottle at half price per oz?
Is it? Yeah.
Yes it absolutely is deceptive! I have seen other companies do the same thing.
This is just shameful. Companies should be fined for this, it’s blatantly deceptive. Sadly, I’m sure they won’t be penalized. “Some consumers may want a separate bottle to avoid rubbing their body and then rubbing their face…” Etc. etc. At the very least the price and volume should be identical.