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 2015 Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, which urges the Court to review the case.

July 2015: An appellate court judge affirmed the district court’s approval of the settlement of this lawsuit. (Case No. 14-13882, 11th Cir.)

August 2014: The district court granted final approval of this settlement.

April 2014: The parties moved for final approval of a settlement that would resolve two false advertising lawsuits claiming that The Gillette Company and The Procter & Gamble Company misleadingly represent the battery life of Duracell Ultra Advanced and Ultra Power batteries. The complaints, which were originally filed in 2012, allege that the companies falsely promised the Ultra Advanced and the Ultra Power batteries would last longer than the less expensive Duracell batteries when, in reality, they did not. To read the 2013 Florida complaint, click here. To read the 2012 California complaint, click here. According to the settlement terms, class members with proof of purchase may receive a $3 refund for up to four purchases of AA or AAA Duracell Ultra Advanced or Ultra Power batteries (class members without proof of purchase may receive a refund for up to two purchases). In addition, the companies agreed to stop using specific phrases (including “Our Longest Lasting”) in the marketing for the batteries. The final approval hearing is scheduled for May 22, 2014. (Poertner et al v. The Gillette Company and The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 12-cv-00803, M. D. FL. and Collins et al v. The Gillette Company and The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 12-cv-01778, N. D. CA.).