Retail

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

When It Comes to Eye Drops, They Can’t All Be the #1 Doctor Recommended Brand

MrConsumer has been having trouble focusing on his computer screen, and his eye doctor recommended using eye drops for dry eyes. In reviewing the websites and product labels of various brands, I discovered a curious thing — three companies all claimed their products to be the “#1 doctor recommended” brand!

Systane by Alcon

Systane

*MOUSE PRINT:

On their website, Alcon, the maker of Systane, shows all their tears products with the #1 claim on the box, and says the claim is based on an IQVIA ProVoice Survey of Eye Care Professionals 12 months ending December 31, 2021.


Refresh by Allergan

On its website, Allergan, the maker of Refresh brand eye drops also says that its family of products is #1 doctor recommended. Their claim is based on an Ipsos survey done in 2021.

Refresh


iVizia by Similasan

And just to further confuse the situation of dueling #1 claims, now comes a new product entrant into the U.S. market called iVizia.

iVizia

*MOUSE PRINT:

It boldly says “#1 Doctor Prescribed.” But in smaller type it is not that this specific product is most prescribed, but rather this manufacturer is number one in Europe.


Company Response

We wrote to the makers of both Systane and Refresh to ask some very pointed questions of how they both could be making the same #1 claim. We requested details of the survey, who qualified as an eye care professional, how the key question upon which their claim was based was worded, and whether they thought consumers picking up a specific product would understand that the number one claim was not necessarily about that product but rather an overall brand preference.

Abbvie, the maker of Refresh, did not reply to multiple requests for comment. Alcon, the maker of Systane, said in a not particularly responsive prepared statement:

“Alcon stands behind the #1 doctor recommended brand of artificial tears claim, which is substantiated by an IQVIA ProVoice Survey of 4,441 eye care professionals during the period January 1 to December 31, 2021. IQVIA is a third party that specializes in advanced analytics and clinical research services to the life sciences industry. Alcon complies with all applicable advertising and marketing laws and regulations in making the claim.”

We didn’t ask the makers of iVizia about its claim since it clearly distinguishes its claim as an overseas recommendation.

Without more facts to better evaluate and understand the basis for the other claims, however, the truth just becomes blurred.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

The No Tequila in “Lime-A-Rita” Case Nears Settlement

In May, we reported that a tentative settlement was reached in a case against Anheuser-Busch for marketing its Rita brand of drinks like Lime-A-Rita, which did not contain tequila, Ritas Sangria Spritz, which did not contain red wine, and Ritas Mohito Fizz when in fact it did not contain rum.

The only disclosure about this was on the bottom of the carton, where consumers are not likely to look nor understand that fact based on the wording they used.

Lime-a-Rita

Now the parties have reach a more specific agreement.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Settlement Class members may seek a refund for a maximum total refund of $21.25 per Household with Proof of Purchase. Settlement Class members may seek a maximum total refund of $9.75 per Household without Proof of Purchase.

A-B has also agreed to make changes to the marketing, labeling, and packaging of the Products, including the addition of the word Malt Beverage on the consumer facing panels of the Product packaging, and clear disclaimers on the website noting that each of the Products Does not contain distilled spirits.

One New Label Samplenew label

So the company will modify their labeling and pay ten or twenty dollars to affected consumers. But honestly, the mock-up of this part of their new label doesn’t seem to communicate an awful lot new in a conspicuous manner.

The judge still has to approve the settlement. We’ll provide a link in Consumer World to the claim form at that time.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

HP Sued Over Printers That Won’t Scan or Fax When Ink Is Low

Two consumers who bought Hewlett-Packard (HP) all-in-one printers are suing the company after they discovered that their machines would not scan or fax when it was low on ink or empty.

HP all-in-one

Of course, neither scanning nor faxing requires any ink in order to accomplish those tasks.

This case is essentially similar to a complaint filed against Canon last year where a consumer claimed that his printer stopped scanning when his ink cartridges were low or empty. [See story.]

*MOUSE PRINT:

The lawsuit against HP claims:

6. What HP fails to disclose is that, if even one of the ink cartridges is too low or empty, the scanning function on the “all-in-one” printer will be disabled and will not work as advertised (hereinafter, the “Design Flaw”).

7. None of HP’s advertising or marketing materials disclose the basic fact that its All-in-One Printers do not scan documents when the devices have low or empty ink cartridges.

12. HP’s intent is clear, namely, to have their multi-function devices revert to an inoperable “error state” so that a large subset of those multi-function device purchasers will purchase additional overpriced and unnecessary ink cartridges in order to be able to scan and to fax documents. The end goal is to increase the sales of one HP’s largest profit makers, ink.

So the consumers are suing for misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and unfair or deceptive practices.

A related issue alleges that some HP all-in-one printers won’t scan when their ink cartridges have plenty of ink but have expired. That was reported by two of our readers last year but is not raised in this lawsuit.