This action seeks redress on a class-wide basis for deceptive and otherwise improper business practices that Unilever engages in with respect to the labeling and packaging of the following “Degree8” deodorants and antiperspirants and “Dove®” deodorants and antiperspirants.
As alleged, Defendant, with the intent to induce consumers to purchase its Products for a premium, manufactures, markets and sells the Products (i) with labels that list a false and misleading net weight of actual usable deodorant/antiperspirant, (ii) with labels that list a false and misleading total net weight of deodorant/antiperspirant (whether usable or unusable) and (iii) in misleading packaging with excessive empty space and non-functional slack-fill, in violation of consumer protection laws of the fifty states and District of Columbia.
Plaintiffs bring this proposed consumer class action on behalf of themselves and all other persons nationwide, who from the applicable limitations period up to and including the present (the “Class Period”), purchased for consumption and not resale of the Products. During the Class Period, defendant purposefully sold the products with (i) labels that list a false and misleading net weight and (ii) misleading packaging containing excessive empty space and non-functional slack-fill, throughout the United States. Defendant’s misrepresentations include advertising and packaging the Products in containers which had: a) Net weight statements that were greater than the actual weight of usable product therein, referred to as “short weight” (in industry parlance) which, when displayed for sale to Plaintiffs and other reasonable consumers, caused false representations as to the correct weight of the Products; b) Net weight statements that were greater than the total net weight (including usable and unusable portions of deodorant/antiperspirant) in the containers thereof, which when displayed for sale to Plaintiffs and other reasonable consumers, caused false representations as to the correct weight of the Products; and c) Void space not visible by consumers, referred to as “non-functional slack-fill.” This non-functional slack-fill packaging, when displayed for sale to Plaintiffs and other reasonable consumers, caused the false impression that there was more product than actually packaged.
Plaintiffs and Class members viewed Defendant’s intentionally misleading labeling and Product packaging, relied on the representations and were thereby deceived in deciding to purchase the Products for a premium price.