Food/Groceries

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

This Coppertone Sunscreen Is Not So Special

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.

Coppertone[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?

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Fish Fillets Plumped Up With Water

MrConsumer was always suspicious that store brand frozen, unbreaded fish fillets were somehow plumped up with water to add to the package weight because after pan frying they would shrink to a fraction of their original size.

Now, in a lawsuit just filed by consumers from three states, food giant, Conagra, is accused of doing just that to two big brands of breaded fish fillets — Van de Kamp’s and Mrs. Paul’s.

fish fillets

While the package says “100% whole fish filtets,” the ingredients statement tells a different story.

*MOUSE PRINT:

ingredients

According to the lawsuit:

The truth is, Defendant pumps up those fish with an industrial filler called sodium tripolyphosphate (“STPP”) and extra water to artificially add weight, which may then ooze out as a white goo when the fish is cooked. STPP, a suspected neurotoxin, is typically used to manufacture things like rubber, paint, and antifreeze. STPP also is used by unscrupulous businesses in the seafood industry to engage in short weighting.

The disclosure in tiny print on the back of the products’ labels about the presence of STPP does not dispel or disclaim to reasonable consumers the bold, prominent statements on the front and back of the products suggesting that the products are composed of ‘100% whole fish

The consumers’ lawyers say the fish is soaked in a solution of STPP which encourages the absorption of water. On average, they say, this adds 13-percent of extra weight to the fish.

Here is a video demonstration of how much a fish fillet shrinks when pan fried by exuding the water it had been plumped up with.

In the lawsuit, the lawyers allege a variety of unfair and deceptive practices under various consumer laws and seek a stop to the practices charged. Conagra has not commented on the pending litigation. And a consumer lawyer told MrConsumer that using STPP may be legal.

What do you think of the practice of bulking up the weight of fish products with water and chemicals?

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Did 7-Eleven Reduce Coffee Cup Sizes?

Last month we reported on a national movie chain seemingly shortchanging customers on beer purchases because the cups could not hold the advertised number of ounces. Now, some people have complained that 7-Eleven coffee cups are shrinking too.

According to their website, the chain of convenience stores sells regular coffee in four sizes: 12-oz. (small), 16-oz. (medium), 20-oz. (large), and 24-oz. (extra large).

*MOUSE PRINT:

7-11 coffee cup sizes

But one consumer noticed a very large indent in the bottom of the extra-large cup and wondered if he was really getting 24-ounces of coffee.

7-11 indent

CBS 8 San Diego reporter Anna Laurel decided to put all the sizes of 7-Eleven coffee cups to the test.

The test revealed that to get the stated amount of coffee, the cups had to be filled right to the brim. And in the case of the extra large 24-ounce cup, it appeared not to be able to hold a full 24 ounces.

We wrote to 7-Eleven’s PR folks to ask their reaction to the video test, and whether they had changed their cup sizes. The company did not respond to either the TV station or to us.

It is not clear to MrConsumer when a company advertises sizes of coffee such as 16 ounces, whether the customer should be getting 16 ounces of black coffee to which they can add milk or cream if desired, or whether it is customary to fill these cups with less than 16 ounces to allow room for that addition. Either way, it seems that having to fill the 7-Eleven cups right to the brim with hot coffee is something most people don’t do and thus they are probably getting less than they paid for. Your thoughts are welcome in the comments.