Duracell
TINA.org filed an amicus curiae brief in a case regarding the deceptive marketing of Duracell Ultra batteries supporting a class member’s petition for review to the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve how courts should evaluate certain types of class-action settlement relief.
Timeline
2016
March 21
The U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari, meaning that it will not be reviewing this case.
January 14
Believing that there is a great need for uniformity in how federal courts value injunctive relief in false advertising class-action lawsuits, TINA.org files an amicus curiae brief in support of the petition for review to the U.S. Supreme Court.
2015
December 11
One of the objectors files a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, urging the Court to review this case. Among other things, the petitioner argues that the 11th circuit decision is at odds with other circuits in the nation, and that the 11th circuit made a big mistake in ascribing value to meaningless injunctive relief (i.e., promising to refrain from making certain claims on the label of a product that is no longer being sold), as well as the donation of defendants’ own products to charities.
July 16
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals publishes an opinion affirming the District Court’s order approving the settlement.
2014
September 15
Objectors appeal the District Court’s decision to the 11th Circuit.
August 21
The District Court, overruling class members’ objections to the agreement, grants final approval of the settlement.
2013
October 25
The Gillette Company and Proctor & Gamble settle a class-action lawsuit over the allegedly deceptive marketing of Duracell Ultra batteries. (Plaintiffs alleged that the companies falsely marketed Ultra batteries as lasting longer than the standard CopperTop batteries when that wasn’t the case.) The settlement provides $5.68 million to the plaintiffs’ attorneys, $6 million worth of Duracell products to charities, $344,850 to the class (with each member who filed a claim receiving between $6 and $12), and a promise from Gillette to stop putting the allegedly misleading statements on the packaging of Ultra batteries, which, by the time the agreement was reached, had already been taken off the shelves and discontinued.
The Latest
Are You a ‘Reasonable Consumer’?
Courts weigh in on legal term.
Based on Ads, Juju Goes to the 49ers
In Super Bowl, it’s Willis over Upshaw.
Class-Action Tracker
Duracell LED Flashlights with Replacement Batteries
Allegations: Misleadingly advertising the amount of time Duracell LED flashlights provide light and the lifespan of the flashlights while in storage
Duracell Batteries at Ocean State Job Lots
In July 2017, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Ocean State Job Lot for allegedly deceptively marketing batteries as traditional and authentic Duracell batteries when, according to plaintiffs, the batteries…
Duracell Ultra Advanced and Ultra Power Batteries
March 2016: The U.S. Supreme Court denied An order the U.S. Supreme Court issues to review a lower court’s judgment.. January 2015: TINA.org filed an amicus brief supporting a December…
Duracell Batteries with the Duralock Ring
In March 2016, a federal judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed against Gillette and Procter & Gamble alleging that the marketing for Duracell AA and AAA Copper Top batteries with…