Judges are not looking favorably on consumer cases against candy manufacturers who only fill their boxes halfway.
When manufacturers over-package a product creating empty space inside that has no function other than to make consumers think they are getting more for their money than they really are, that is called slack fill, and it’s illegal under federal law (and the law of some states). It is not illegal if the empty space is needed because of settling of the product, or because the machinery to fill the package requires it, or the space is needed to protect the product (such as the cushioning pillow created by large potato chips bags).
A federal court judge just let Tootsie Roll off hook for its five-and-a-half inch high boxes of Junior Mints that are close to half empty inside.
*MOUSE PRINT:
Note that the illustration with a ruler is of a revised box introduced after the lawsuit ended that states on the front the minimum number of mints inside.
In ruling against the consumer who brought the case, the judge said in part in his opinion:
To begin, the Products contain a disclosure that the Products are sold by weight, and not volume, which addresses the very information that Plaintiff alleges was misrepresented.
Furthermore, the net weight of the candy, both in metric and standard measurements, is displayed on the front of the Products’ boxes in easily discernable font.
And citing some other related cases, the judge adopted their conclusions:
“the slack-fill enclosed in [a box of Junior Mints] would not mislead a reasonable consumer†because the Junior Mints’ boxes included the net weight of the candy and consumers have come to expect some slack-fill in certain products…
…a consumer “can easily calculate the number of candies contained in the Product boxes simply by multiplying the serving size by the number of servings in each box, information displayed in the nutritional facts section on the back of each box.â€
What’s troubling is the judge’s reasoning that since the net weight is stated on the package (as all packaged food products are required to) that somehow makes irrelevant that the product is packaged in a box that makes it look like it contains more content than it really does. What is the point of the slack-fill law if over-packaging like this is continued to be allowed?
Not to mention the trees killed to make the packaging, but I digress…
This ruling by the judge is, in a word, irrational.
The reasoning the judge used that really aggravated me is the statement that “consumers have come to expect some slack-fill…†Of COURSE consumers have come to expect getting ripped off, because it happens over and over again by increasingly greedy corporations. The corporation-friendly courts that continue to allow it to happen are now using the argument that because people expect to be ripped off is justification for allowing it to continue!?!?!
Good comment, Sunny!
How Much Slack fill will that judge even accept though??
Would the judge even give a pass to that same box of candy pictured above with only just one piece of candy in it??
Here here!
These corporations keep blaming slack-fill, unnecessary spacing, for protection of the product. What has changed about all these products that requires so very much more empty space for protection than it did 5-10-15 even twenty years ago? Since the laws created to prevent this behavior seemed to have no teeth it’s time for people to take the situation into their own hands. The best and quickest solution to not being ripped off by these greedy corporations is to stop buying these products. Granted some things are necessary purchases many things are not, such as mints.
Sometimes the Frito-lays company does make smaller packaging when the do make the quantity in the bag smaller. Just not going to do it for every single quarter ounce cut though.
“Consumers have come to expect slack-fill so we’ve decided those laws don’t matter anymore.”
This is insane. Imagine if other companies started adopting this. Just put 1 quart of ice cream into a 1.5qt container. “Oh well, we said on the box it was only 1qt of ice cream, you should have known.”
Even the judge’s reasoning is asinine. “Consumers should be able to tell how many junior mints are in the box by looking at the nutrition info on the back.” as if that somehow solves the problem.
Exactly! I want to be handed the box so I can shake it but you’re not given that choice.
Well Joel the back of the box does say 11 pieces per serving for those peppermint crunch junior mints shown above.
I like to think of myself as a reasonable consumer. As such, I buy canned and packaged products on a “price per ounce” basis. Fresh meat is “price per pound”. Paper goods on a “cost per square foot” basis. If the price is too high, then I don’t buy. Most people now have smartphones with calculators. No big effort to do the math. And besides, downsizing has been with us for decades now. We should expect it. We don’t have to like it, but, we know it’s there. How many times do people have to “burned” before they just quit buying these products?
We are going to continue to buy these products no matter what.
We could fully bankrupt brands like Frito-lays or Charmin that have been multiple time shrinkflation offenders in the past decade if all Americans stopped buying those products.
At least some products like Hellmann’s Mayo do not do it like Charmin does but we are just forced to pay a higher price for the product no matter what.
I agree. At some point we just need to stand up for ourselves and stop buying things that make us mad. I have solved a lot of cost issues for myself by joining Costco. Buying in bulk saves lots of money. And, so far, I haven’t seen downsizing there. Stay tuned.
Well Glen Weybright even at Costco they can’t even avoid Shrinkflation. They were like the last store in the USA to cut the Tropicana orange Juice from 59oz to 52oz.
How much ya wanna bet the judge had a pocketful of Junior Mints or Junior Mint stock certificates!
Hey, I saw Mr. Consumer on the news! They had a story about “Shrinkflation” and I thought, “Hey they should have contacted Mr. Consumer!” And then, blammo, he’s on the screen telling about how companies shrink their products to lower costs without lowering the price. That was a very nice surprise!