class action

Updated every Monday!   Subscribe to free weekly newsletter.

Robitussin Puts Non-Drowsy Lawsuit to Bed

In 2022, two different consumers sued the makers of Robitussin alleging that package claims of the products being non-drowsy were false and misleading. (See complaint.)

In particular, the suits said that one of the active ingredients in these cough suppressants, dextromethorphan (DXM), was actually known to cause drowsiness. Further, the complaints alleged that the “drug facts” disclosure on the back of the boxes did not warn about possible drowsiness.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Robitussin DM

The plaintiffs also cited various medical studies supporting the fact that DXM could make one sleepy, and pointed out that the Federal Aviation Administration advised pilots not to fly if they have taken it.

In 2023, the case was decided in favor of the manufacturer on the theory that the state law consumer violations cited were pre-empted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act governing drug products like this. The consumers appealed.

Despite that, the parties negotiated with each other since the court decision, and came to a settlement of the claims for $4.5-million. The company has agreed to discontinue the non-drowsy claims. Purchasers as far back as 2016 may be entitled to between $1.50 and $4.75 per claim. More details will be available after a judge signs off on the agreement.

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.

Walmart to Pay Millions for Meat Dept. Overcharges – The Back Story

This is the craziest case MrConsumer has ever seen in his 47 years as a consumer advocate. While you may have heard about this case last week, what wasn’t reported was the clever way Walmart pulled off the alleged overcharging scheme.

Walmart was sued by a consumer claiming that for years the company has manipulated the weight and price of packaged meat, poultry, and fish sold by the pound, as well as certain bagged produce, such that shoppers were charged more than the lowest represented price per pound shown on shelf tags and signs.

Most of the overcharges occurred on “rollback” or sale/reduced items. Look at this example from the lawsuit.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Walmart turkey

Turkey was 98 cents a pound according to the Walmart sign, but they were marked $1.48 a pound — 50 cents higher. So this 15-pound turkey the consumer was going to buy should have cost $15.07 and not $22.76 as marked. Instead, at the checkout, while the system was properly programmed to charge the 98 cents per pound price, it deceptively changed the weight to now be over 23 pounds. And magically, the consumer was charged the full $22.76 price on the tag — close to an eight dollar overcharge.

Here’s another example.

*MOUSE PRINT:

Walmart pork chops

The shelf label for these pork chops says they are $4.67 a pound, but the package is marked $5.17 a pound – 50 cents higher. Doing the math, the total price of that package should be $9.25, not $10.24 — which is almost a dollar higher. Yet, when the customer went to buy it, the checkout system somehow manipulated the weight of the item, raising it to 2.19 pounds instead of the actual weight of just under two pounds. The result, while the consumer was charged the price marked on the package, that was based on a higher price per pound than it should have been.

Walmart denies any wrongdoing but has tentatively agreed to settle the case for $45-million. Customers who purchased eligible groceries sold by weight from Walmart between October 19, 2018 and January 19, 2024 qualify for the settlement. If you have receipts, you can get two-percent back on eligible items up to $500. Others can get up to $25 depending on how many items they purchased.

June 5th is the deadline to submit a claim. Be sure to read the FAQs at that link.

Now my question for you, dear readers, is this: What was Walmart trying to do with this crazy practice of manipulating the net weights on the sales receipt? Were they really trying to intentionally defraud shoppers by cleverly making the sales receipt look like shoppers were charged the price on the item and the correct price per pound? If so, every state AG and weights and measures official across the country should go after them. However, I suspect something else was really going on here — some alternate explanation — but I just don’t know what it is.