Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Here We Shrink Again – Spring 2025

Shrinkflation slowed a little in early 2025, but now seems to be picking up a bit again. Here are some more products that have been downsized over the past six months or so.

Simply Orange Orange Juice

Except for store brand orange juice which in some cases is still 64 ounces, brand name OJ has had a steady decline in size going from 64 oz. to 59 oz. to 52 oz. and now to 46 oz. The latest casualty is Simply Orange whose carafes are now just 46 ounces. And in MrConsumer’s Stop & Shop, the price actually went UP 10 cents to $4.89! To look at the bottles head-on, it is hard to see how you lost a full glass of OJ in each one. You may be able to find old and new bottles side-by-side in your local supermarket right now.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Simply Orange 52 to 46 oz

Thanks to Richard G. for spotting this change.

Ruffles

Potato chip bags have been downsized for decades. The latest example is Ruffles whose bags are now down to 8.5 ounces from nine ounces. But rest assured, you’ll still get the same amount of air or perhaps a bit more in each bag.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Ruffles

Tide

Another category where there has been a lot of resizing is laundry detergents. The latest trend seems to be to keep the number of loads you get the same, but with fewer ounces of the product.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Tide 14 oz. less

In this case, big bottles of Tide shrank by 14 ounces, but you still supposedly could get 100 itsy-bitsy, teenie-weenie loads of laundry out of every bottle. The difference is usually explained by having some amount of water removed from the formulation. That makes the stuff more concentrated so you can use a little less in each wash load. Raise your hand if you actually do use less!

*MOUSE PRINT:

Tide 250 - 225 oz

Less popular these days is powdered detergent, but that doesn’t exempt them from being downsized. Here, 25 ounces was removed from each box, but you still theoretically are able to get 143 loads out of it. The question becomes what unnecessary ingredient have they removed from this dry product that doesn’t affect its cleaning ability? It certainly is not water. Thanks to Brendan B. for spotting this change at Costco.

Bounty Paper Towels

Paper products is another big category where we find shrinkflation. In this case, earlier this year, P&G downsized Bounty. In this case, their triple rolls went for 135 sheets down to 123. Thanks to both Richard G. and Brendan B. for spotting this.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Bounty lost a dozen sheets

Crystal Light

With summer not too far away, don’t expect your Crystal Light packages to make as many bottles of lemonade as before. The old six-pack has become a four-pack.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Crystal Light

Pure Leaf Tea

Another summertime beverage also is now giving you less per bottle — Pure Leaf tea. The half gallon bottles lost five ounces and are now just 59 ounces. But the bottles are about the same height. One trick they used was making the cap larger. They also had to taper the bottle, it appears. Thanks to Denise H. for this submission.

CORRECTION: Both these sizes still exist. The larger one is a shelf-stable product in the grocery/beverages section, while the smaller one is sold in the refrigerated case, unchanged. Thanks to Kevin M. for the clarification.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Pure Leaf tea

If you spot a product that was downsized, please provide details and try to submit a picture showing the old and new side-by-side as you see above to Edgar (at symbol) MousePrint.org. Thanks.

Share this story:

 

ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Ticketmaster Sued Over Hidden Junk Fees

Consumers from several states in March sued Ticketmaster and its owner, Live Nation, for showing a lower price for event tickets upfront but hiding the true higher price of them until deep into the buying process. (See complaint.)

In its scheme, Ticketmaster uses a deceptively low upfront price to lure consumers into the purchase flow for tickets—the bait. Then, once Ticketmaster has lured Plaintiffs and consumers like them into the transaction with a deceptively low price, Ticketmaster adds exorbitant junk fees (in unpredictable amounts) after Plaintiffs and consumers had already relied on the low advertised price and made the decision to buy. In other words, only after a consumer has invested time choosing an event, selected their specific tickets, made the decision to purchase those tickets based on the low advertised price, and clicked through a multi-page purchase process, do Defendants reveal the hefty mandatory fees that will be added to the total ticket prices—the switch.

The lawsuit provided an example of a California consumer going through the purchase process of two tickets to see the Harlem Globetrotters.

The consumer searches Ticketmaster and finds that the cheapest seats are $32 each.
Ticketmaster $32 seats

He then goes through a process of picking the specific seats, and the site shows a subtotal, and only in tiny print does it say “+ fees.” However, if one clicked the fees link, it would not state the specific amount of those fees.

plus fees

*MOUSE PRINT:

The consumer is then asked to sign in and sees a countdown clock with only eight minutes on it during which time the transaction must be completed. Then a total screen comes up showing $112.06 for his two tickets. At least when MrConsumer went to school, $32 times two is $64.

Total ticket price

There is no mention of what the fees were for or the specific amounts unless you click the down arrow to the right of the total.

Fees explained

Now you finally see there are services charges, facility fees, order processing charges, and tax, which combined almost double the price of the tickets being purchased. All this time the countdown clock is running and many ticket buyers who have now invested substantial time and effort in the process may just pull the trigger.

In some states, ticket sellers have been required to show “all-in” pricing for years. But as of May 5, that is now the law of the land since the Federal Trade Commission’s new rule on hidden fees went into effect.

Ticketmaster is now complying nationwide as noted below, but they highlight a mandatory arbitration clause to prevent future lawsuits!

Ticketmaster all-in pricing and arbitration

Share this story:

 

ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Is the Pope Leo Trading Card Offer an Illegal Lottery?

Before the ink was even dry on the proclamation of the new pope, commercialization efforts began.

Right out of the gate, Topps, the trading card company, began offering Pope Leo XIV commemorative cards. They come in two versions: the standard card and a very limited edition one with white smoke in the background. That version will only have 267 printed, each one individually numbered, like works of art.

Pope Leo cards

Topps was taking orders on its website between May 8 and 11 only and charging $8.99 per card, with quantity discounts available. Within two weeks, the company promised to mail out the cards.

In addition, depending on how many cards Topps sells in total, the company will also print several dozen so-called “parallels” or “chase” cards — very fancy foil versions of various rarities and seed them randomly across all the orders. All purchasers will have a chance of getting one of these very rare cards instead of the standard “base” card.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Pope card parallels

The question arises, however, does this promotion constitute an illegal lottery? Lotteries are defined by state law. “Paying a price for the chance of a prize” is the typical definition.

For example, if Quaker Oats was to advertise that they have hidden a diamond ring in one of every ten thousand boxes of their oatmeal, they would violate state gambling laws. But consumer products companies can legally comply with the law by transforming the promotion into a sweepstakes. To do that, they eliminate the “price” element by offering a no-purchase-necessary means of allowing anyone the chance to win. Typically that is accomplished by asking consumers to send in a three-by-five card with their name and address.

In this case, however, Topps does not offer the public a free chance of receiving one of the theoretically more valuable limited-edition cards.

We asked the company’s PR representative to comment on this issue, and checked with two legal experts who specialize in lottery law. We only heard back from one expert who has sued companies for conducting illegal lotteries. He said, in part…

…more research is needed but “the question now is what consideration are the purchasers of the ‘pope card’ giving for the chance to get [one of the special] cards. This whole scheme by Topps just doesn’t pass the smell test.” –Bill Pannell

There apparently is a history of mostly failed legal attempts to hold trading card companies liable for gambling (see page 406) when they sell card packets some of which randomly contain more valuable cards.

What do you think? Does Topps cross the line by enticing the purchase of these pope cards because there is a chance the buyer will luck out and get one of the rare and potentially more valuable ones?

Share this story:

 

ADV