Axe Antiperspirants
Allegations: Deceptively marketing that products provide “Anti Marks Protection” when the active ingredient actually causes white marks and yellow stains
October 2019: This case was transferred to federal court. (Case No. 19-cv-2723, E. D. MO.)
July 2019: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Unilever for allegedly falsely marketing that its Axe Anti Marks Protection line of antiperspirants provides protection from and do not produce white marks and yellow stains when, according to plaintiffs, the active ingredient (aluminum zirconium tetrachlorohydrex GLY) causes white marks and yellow stains on clothing. (Crepps et al v. Conopco, Inc. d/b/a Unilever, Case No. 19JE-CC00489, Missouri State Court – Jefferson County)
For more of TINA.org’s coverage of the marketing of deodorants, click here.
Allegations: Deceptively marketing that products provide “Anti Marks Protection” when the active ingredient actually causes white marks and yellow stains
In August 2020, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Unilever for allegedly deceptively using You know when you buy a big bag of chips, and you’re all psyched for a…
A popular summertime treat is the subject of a current trend in class-action litigation.
A review of TINA.org’s work exposing deceptive marketing tactics by social media influencers.
Finding evidence of a material relationship on this sponsored post requires some real sleuthing.
Unilever loses appeal to keep Bath & Body Works fragrance comparisons on product packaging.
With Earth Day right around the corner, here’s a handful of items whose earthy claims have been challenged.