Class Ass Suit
As Walter Olson put it on Overlawyered, "Can't squeeze the last 20% of toothpaste from the tube? Sue!"
He linked to an LA Weekly blog item by Simone Wilson about an Encino man, Jonathan Rothstein, bringing a class action suit because he couldn't get the last bit of toothpaste out of the tube of Crest:
The excruciating details of a consumer's plight:"Once the dispenser becomes 'lighter' and is 'harder to squeeze,' it will no longer dispense toothpaste. At this point, the only way to access the remaining toothpaste is to cut open the packaging with scissors or a knife. However in doing so, the promise of 'Less Mess,' the slogan associated with the Neat Squeeze dispenser, is lost and the package is not designed or intended to be sliced open."Rothstein says he sees right through Procter & Gamble's money-making ploy. By preventing tooth-brushers from getting at the last of the tube, the company in effect "sells more units of toothpaste, whether in the Neat Squeeze dispenser or other container, than it otherwise would if the entire volume of toothpaste in the package could be used."
The comment I left on Overlawyered:
I can barely find time to get to the grocery store, and have frozen hot dogs in my freezer for moments of extreme mealtime desperation. Whose life is so bankrupt that they have time to sue because they didn't that Cresty goodness to the very last drop? Buy it once, hate on them a little, maybe drop the brand manager a note (fish for a coupon for a freebie or two) and buy something the hell else the next time!
Loser pays legal system, anyone?
Well, of course, the unfortunate part of the Loser Pays system for torts is that
um
I dunno. Any lawyers in the house?
Presumably there are scenarios where some impoverished soul will be unwilling to pursue justice because something might go wrong.
Cosh of Canada did some tweets the other night over capital punishment. (Balko did a big piece on it for Huffpo earlier in the week.) 1, and 2. There will always be things that can go wrong with justice... That doesn't mean we shouldn't pursue it.
On the other hand... Those of us who want to eradicate some of government's swollen regulatory and enforcement power will be counting on courts to smooth resultant conflicts as these offices are depopulated.
Tort reform may be more than we chew when we're also digesting the diminished budgets and entrenched technocrats (Hi, Raddy!) of the oncoming crisis.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at October 1, 2011 1:00 AM
Someone needs to send this guy one of those toothpaste squeezers. They're about five bucks.
Elle at October 1, 2011 8:04 AM
Did the guy even try complaining to the manufacturer?
Years and years ago I bought some pizza rolls and the count was short in one box and over in another. For the pure hell of it I wrote them a letter of complaint about the inconsistency. I got a very nice letter of apology and several coupons.
An acquaintance had purchased some soup that turned out to be mislabeled. When she complained that a meal had been ruined, the manufacturer sent a check for $50.00, to cover her estimation of the cost of her ruined dinner.
At that time manufacturers were apparently happy to compensate individuals who complained about an item. I imagine it's much easier, cheaper and less time-consuming then dealing with this kind of bullshit.
Maybe it's different now...I'll have to try it next time I'm that annoyed about a product.
Pricklypear at October 1, 2011 9:48 AM
Loser pays means that individuals could never sue corporations. Let's say you had a legitimate complaint (as opposed to this toothpaste b.s.) against a big corporation. If you sue them, you run the risk of having to pay thousands of dollars of corporate lawyer fees. Even with a legitimate case, there's no guarantee that you will win, and the potential downside could be huge. Most cases are not ridiculously lopsided one way or the other. There are usually legitimate arguments on both sides. In these cases, in a loser pays system, there would be no way for an individual consumer to take on a large corporation with expensive staff lawyers.
clinky at October 1, 2011 11:18 AM
As in so many things in our society, the fix will be another warning message somewhere on the toothpaste tube:
Contents 6.4 oz. Easily used contents 6.2 oz.
The fundamental principle of US comsumer law is that all customers are dumb robots who cannot think, know, or observe anything which is not disclosed on a warning label.
Microwave ovens always have a booklet describing all of the things which the consumer is warned against, such as "don't dry animals", "don't use in the rain or bathtub", "don't heat non-food items or anything flammable", "place on a stable surface before operating this oven", and "requires access to 120V AC power for operation".
All of these points and many others have been litigated, and so we have the warnings.
Andrew_M_Garland at October 1, 2011 1:01 PM
I don't understand. Why doesn't he sue the guy that is forcing him to use that brand of toothpaste? I mean, the gun-wielding psychopath saying "Use Crest or die!" is obviously the real villain here.
cornerdemon at October 1, 2011 1:07 PM
It's not the brand, it's the packaging. Most of you should be old enough to remember the metal tubes that toothpaste came in, the kind from which you could squeeze nearly every cubic mm of toothpaste by rolling the tube up. At some point manufacturers switched to plastic, which doesn't allow squeezing it all out by far because of elasticity. The tube will split before you can get near to the last, as did the metal ones but with better results. The packaging is likely cheaper, a conspiracy to reduce packaging cost not to cheat customers.
The lawsuit is frivolous, but I have sympathy. Think of all the packages you use daily, from chicken noodle soup to detergent, and consider if they were made such that you always left 10% of the product in the package because it wasn't retrievable.
Ariel at October 1, 2011 2:19 PM
I guess I'm not seeing the problem here. I've never had a plastic tube split and I bet when I'm done with it and am ready to toss it in the trash, there's not enough left to brush three teeth.
Not Sure at October 1, 2011 5:36 PM
"Loser pays means that individuals could never sue corporations. "
That pendulum swings both ways, though -- ever seen how shareholder lawsuit rackets work? You buy one share of a company, file a lawsuit for issuing misleading financial statements, and then tie them in knots with blanket discovery demands. I've more than once had to spend hours on records gathering, documentation, and retention in order for my employers to defend themselves against a shotgun shareholder lawsuit, and I have nothing to do with the legal or business side of the company. I can easily see how a small or medium-sized company in an inherently risky sector (like, ahem, aerospace) can easily be put out of business by shareholder lawsuits.
That's why you'll find that most such companies are privately owned. But not going public means that they don't have access to the market to raise capital for expansion. Which means that the big companies don't have to worry as much about competition.
Cousin Dave at October 2, 2011 7:19 AM
Ha ha...hilarious law suit...some more fun material for immigrants in usa to share with their relatives and friends back home to poke fun at USA
Redrajesh at October 3, 2011 3:06 AM
Leave a comment