PepsiCo is facing a class action! Have you ever opened a bag of snakcs and found there was an empty space? This is what happened with PepsiCo, many consumers claim they have been scammed by PepsiCo because the company was using an excessive amount of slack-fill, an empty space. This made consumers think they were buying more than they really are. The action also explains this affects fair competence in the market.
These types of actions are more common than we might think. So, let’s find out how this PepsiCo lawsuit started and what the company is doing about it. Let’s get started!
The lawsuit
Bonnie Reyes is a PepsiCo consumer who started the class action in a federal court of California against PepsiCo Inc. The company owns a puffed rice snack called PopCorners and Reyes pleads the packaging of this snack was a bit empty, with no functional reason behind it, making consumers think they were buying more product than what they really are.
Slack-fill
PepsiCo is accused of using slack-fill on their packaging to make it look like there was more product inside. But, what’s ‘’slack-fill’’? There are two types of slack-fill, so let’s explain it:
- Functional slack-fill: this is when there is an empty space inside the packaging with a logical reason. For example, some companies do this to protect the product inside, guarantee the product being fresh or match legal requirements.
- Non-functional slack-fill: this is the opposite, when there is an empty space that doesn’t match any legitimate function. This space is only used to make the packaging look bigger.
Arguments behind the class action
PopCorners consumers felt scammed once they opened the snacks. This was the main argument for the class action, but there are more, so let’s see them all:
- Packaging size: PopCorners packaging was opaque and didn’t show a line indicating how much product there was inside, mostly in Sea Salt flavor. Bonnie Reyes highlights the fact that consumers can’t see the packaging is half empty!
- Intentional scam: according to the action, PepsiCo was financially benefiting from these packagings full of air. Basically, consumers were paying the whole price for a fake amount of the product.
- Unfair competence: this slack-fill also affects other brands that do use proportional and transparent packaging, making them invest in packaging that shows the real product amount inside.
- Legal violations: the action also mentions several laws PepsiCo had broken to scam consumers and competitors. Some of these laws were the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law and the False Advertising Law.
What the action is demanding
Reyes wants to be in charge of a class action that represents every consumer in California who bought PopCorners for personal use in the last 4 years. Some of the demands include: to be officially recognized as a class action, an economical compensation from PepsiCo, refund for affected consumers, adjust the packaging showing how much product is in it, legal costs, fees, and the option of a jury trial.
This has happened before
This action against PepsiCo is similar to the ones affecting other companies. Let’s take the example of e.l.f. Cosmetics, accused of similar things with products like the Holy Hydration! Gentle Peeling Exfoliant and the Glossy Lip Stain. Both packages had up to 50% of non-functional slack-fill.
So, look closer at the products you buy next time if you don’t want to go home and realize you were given less product for the same price. Bonnie Reyes is fighting for her rights as a consumer and that’s what we all should do. Don’t you think this slack-filling has become a tendency?