A bill to regulate shrinking products was recently filed by the Connecticut Attorney General. It is one of the first of its kind pieces of state legislation in the United States. (Some other countries have laws requiring disclosure when a product is downsized.)
The proposed law in Connecticut does not ban shrinkflation, but is a disclosure law requiring notice to shoppers if a product now contains less than it did but the price has not dropped proportionately.
In particular, it says in abbreviated form:
*MOUSE PRINT:
(Effective July 1, 2025) (a) No vendor shall downsize, or reduce the quantity, amount, weight or size of, any consumer product, unless such vendor: (1) Reduces the price charged for such consumer product by an amount that is commensurate with such downsizing or reduction; or (2) Clearly and conspicuously discloses that such vendor has made such downsizing or reduction during the twelve-month period beginning on the date on which (A) the downsized consumer product is first sold, or (B) the consumer product is first sold in such reduced quantity, amount, weight or size.
That last part is not clear, but what is certain is that the “vendor” has to clearly disclose that the product has been downsized. Missing are details like what form the notice has to take, where it has to be displayed (like on the package or shelf), and what specifically has to be told to the consumer other than the fact that the product now contains less. Presumably regulations by the attorney general’s office will have to be promulgated, and I would advocate that they should require a statement that includes the old size or the percentage reduction in size.
Who is responsible for the disclosure? According to the bill, the “vendor” is. “Vendor” is defined as including the distributor, manufacturer, retailer, supplier or wholesaler. So both the manufacturer and retailer would have responsibility for making the required disclosure.
Good luck getting this bill passed, Connecticut. Expect huge opposition from the businesses affected.
>Clearly and conspicuously discloses that such vendor has made such downsizing or reduction
ok… so Proctor and Gamble (and others) will simple put a link on their home web page (even near the top and bold!) to a page that lists the downsizing. Nowhere does it say it needs to be on or even near the product.
Yeah, lotsa luck with that, William Tong. Your heart’s in the right place, though. If only you could convince the power company to lower our rates that would be even better. We pay the highest rates in the country next to Hawaii.
Fabulous idea, but lawmakers get big donations from the campanies that shrinkflate. Will not pass.
I recently noticed that a business debuted the use of smaller (9 oz) packages of its coffee, using different packaging, with the announced purpose of accommodating consumers who prefer buying smaller amounts. Although I tend to doubt it was intentionally disguised shrinkflation, on a per-ounce basis the smaller package is priced significantly higher than the regular (12 oz) package.
a while ago Oj shrunk and the new size was on sale but both shelf and sale price tags listed the old size not new size..so does that constitute, as per Connecticut law, an incorrect price ? Am i entitled to get the item for free up to $20
Rich, I am not familiar with the CT law. If this were Massachusetts, and the price on the shelf is HIGHER than the correct price, you are NOT entitled to the item free. Since you say the old size was larger, and presumably more expensive, there is no overcharge. But, if an inspector was doing an inspection, this would be a sign violation and subject to a fine.