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?

Share this story:

 


ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Can You Really Make Remote Satellite Calls on AT&T?

Last week was a bad week for AT&T. They had a massive data breach that affected all their ~110-million customers, exposing calling and texting records. (Here’s an FAQ about the incident.) Also last week, some of their advertising came under scrutiny by the Better Business Bureau.

The BBB case was about a commercial that began airing in April that shows Ben Stiller on the top of a mountain where his golf ball landed. He is shown making an urgent satellite call on his regular AT&T phone to a golf pro for advice.

T-Mobile filed a complaint with the Better Business Bureau’s National Advertising Division (NAD) complaining that the service shown in the advertisement does not actually exist now and the commercial misleads people into believing that they can make calls even in really remote places.

*MOUSE PRINT:

This is the unreadable, faint, ambiguous, half-second disclosure that AT&T made in the commercial at the 47-second mark:

Evolving technology

NAD examined the facts of the case and decided that one message conveyed by the commercial was that this satellite service was currently available to AT&T customers when in fact it is a planned service for the future.

What was missing, NAD says, was a clear and conspicuous disclosure saying that the service was not currently available. And if AT&T didn’t want to do that, they should discontinue that claim, the BBB ruled.

Well, old Ma Bell didn’t agree, and it is appealing the decision to the National Advertising Review Board.

What do you think watching that commercial? Does it give the impression that this satellite service is available now?

Share this story:

 


ADV
Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Blue Diamond Doesn’t Stick to Its Durability Claims

Blue Diamond waffle platesWhen we buy nonstick cookware, many shoppers want the coating to last as long as possible. So manufacturers try to convince us of how durable their brand is.

In a website ad for Blue Diamond waffle plates for a its griddle, the company can’t seem to get its numbers straight.

First it says its diamond-infused coating delivers five times more strength and lasts 10 times longer.

Blue Diamond 5x-10x

Then it changes the numbers. Ten times longer wasn’t enough, so someone at the company probably suggested let’s say 50 times stronger and six times harder.

Blue Diamond 50x

But then, there’s the old asterisk after those numbers. And the claims change again.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Fine Print

Lasts longer, more strength, more durable, harder… 5x, 10x, 6x, 50x… it almost feels like the company is pulling numbers out of thin air. And that makes their claims at least two times harder to believe.

Share this story:

 


ADV