Retail

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Candy Box Slack-Fill Case Dismissed

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:

Junior MintsJunior Mints inside

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.”

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?

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

At Target, The Price is  Right  Variable

Nothing is easy anymore. You go shopping in a real store, you see the price on the shelf, and you expect that is the price you will pay. But then reality intervenes.

MrConsumer had a $5 coupon from Target that he got when getting his COVID booster and it was about to expire. He finally found something he wanted to buy by checking Target.com on his home computer — four bottles of Market Pantry honey mustard dressing for $1.39 each.

Target honey mustard

So he went to his local Target, and found the salad dressing on the shelf, but it was $1.99!

Target Honey Mustard 1.99

Distressed, he went up to the aisle scanner to double-check the price.

Target honey mustard scanner

It said $1.79. So now we have three different prices: $1.39, $1.79, and $1.99. We know the middle price is what will be actually charged at the register, but that would allow MrConsumer to only get three of the dressing bottles instead of his planned four with his coupon. Grrr.

MrConsumer asked the checkout clerk to price match the $1.39 Target.com price, and he gladly did. (Here is Target’s price match policy.)

But the story doesn’t end there. Did the online price for this salad dressing vary depending on what store you chose as “your” store on the website?

Checking the online price at over a dozen different Target store locations within a 10-mile radius of Boston yielded shocking results.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Target Price Comparison

Target price comparison

The prices ranged from a low of $1.19 to a full dollar more — $2.19. How crazy is that? Supermarkets and drugstores are known for “zone pricing” (charging different prices in different neighborhoods factoring in local competition) but who knew that Target apparently engaged in that practice too? Of course, a sample size of one item says nothing about how Target prices all its other groceries and other merchandise. So we asked the company for details and an explanation.

A Target spokesperson sidestepped most of our questions but acknowledged:

Like many retailers, overall prices and promotions may vary by location and channel.

In further checking, we also learned that not all the Target locations in the chart above actually carry that item, but a shopper could order that product for delivery at the stated web price.

The bottom line is this. Target’s prices for at least some groceries vary store to store, as perhaps other categories of goods do. And since Target maintains a price match policy, including to the prices on its own website, it behooves shoppers to check there to see if the price is lower. Savvy shoppers might discover this is a new way to save money.

Please share your thoughts about the dramatic price differences brought to light in this story.

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Is Godiva Chocolate Really Made in Belgium?

Back in September, we told you about the court case of King’s Hawaiian sweet rolls, whose packaging and advertising says “Est. 1950” and “Hilo, Hawaii” under the brand name suggesting that it was manufactured in Hawaii when in fact it was made in California. (See original story.) Most readers thought there was no case here.

Now fast forward a few months to a similar suit [see complaint] where consumers are claiming that Godiva is misrepresenting their chocolates as being made in Belgium when in fact they are manufactured in Pennsylvania. They cite as evidence that the phrase “Belgium 1926” is depicted under the brand name on every chocolate package, each one says “Belgian chocolate,” and the term is used on signs on their buildings and is included in advertising.

Godiva chocolate

In court, the company made a motion to have the case dismissed. The judge denied most of their request in his ruling, saying…

*MOUSE PRINT:

Courts apply the “reasonable consumer” standard to determine whether a representation is false or deceptive under each of the relevant New York and California consumer-protection statutes.

Godiva also contends that the word “Belgium” is inextricably linked to the year “1926,” and the latter “cures any likelihood of deception,” in its labeling. It argues that for a consumer to be deceived into thinking “Belgium 1926” represents that the products [were made] in Belgium, the consumer must also believe that the products she is purchasing were made almost one-hundred years ago -— a clearly unreasonable belief. This argument, however, is too clever by half.

A consumer could reasonably believe that Godiva was founded in Belgium in 1926, as Godiva contends, and that the representation on its products of this heritage means that its products continue to be manufactured in that location.

With that, the judge allowed the case to move forward.

So what do you think? Do the consumers have a good case this time?