Duracell

March 21, 2016: The U.S. Supreme Court denies certiorari, meaning that it will not be reviewing this case.

January 14, 2016: 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.

December 11, 2015: 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, 2015: The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals publishes an opinion affirming the District Court’s order approving the settlement.

September 15, 2014: Objectors appeal the District Court’s decision to the 11th Circuit.

August 21, 2014: The District Court, overruling class members’ objections to the agreement, grants final approval of the settlement.

October 25, 2013: 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.