Sour Jacks Excessive Slack Fill in Packages Class Action

PIM Brands, Inc. makes Sour Jacks gummy candy, but the complaint for this class action alleges that the Sour Jacks boxes contain around 60% nonfunctional slack fill, or empty space, that leads consumers to believe the boxes contain more candy than they do. The use of excessive slack fill in an opaque container, the complaint alleges, is forbidden by both federal and state law.

Two classes have been defined for this action:

• The Alabama Class is all persons living in Alabama who bought Sour Jacks gummies between November 10, 2016 and the present.
• The Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class is all persons living in Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Maine, Montana, Texas, and Wyoming who bought Sour Jacks gummies between November 10, 2016 and the present.

The complaint defines slack fill as “the difference between the actual capacity of a container and the volume of product contained therein.” Slack fill is nonfunctional when it does not serve a purpose.

Page 5 of the complaint displays a table that compares Sour Jack gummies with four other kinds of candy in similar types of boxes: Jujy Fruits, Fruit Chews, Dots, and Sour Patch Kids. The other four are 54%-87% filled with candy, with only 13%-46% of the space left as slack fill. However, the boxes for Sour Jacks, the complaint alleges, are only 38% filled with candy, with 62% left as slack fill. The table also notes the sizes of the boxes for each candy, with the Sour Jacks box being the largest at 4” x 6”.

In some cases, slack fill may be functional. The law allows exemptions for slack fill that has a purpose or that is needed for some reason, but the complaint alleges that none of the six conditions apply:

• The slack fill does not protect the contents of the Sour Jacks packages.
• The packaging machines for the Sour Jacks do not need the extra space.
• The slack fill is not caused by settling during shipping and handling.
• The slack fill is not needed to perform a function, such as preparing the food.
• The packaging does not have a value separate from the food it contains.
• The slack fill is not needed to prevent pilfering or to accommodate labeling.

The complaint thus claims that no lawful reason exists for the large proportion of slack fill in the Sour Jacks packages.

Thus, there is no lawful reason for the substantial non-functional slack-fill contained in Defendant’s packaging of Sour Jacks gummies candy.

The complaint alleges, “In order for Plaintiff and Class members to be made whole, they must be compensated in an amount equal to the proportion of the purchase price equal to the percentage of” nonfunctional slack fill contained in the product, which consumers paid for but which the company did not deliver.

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer
Tags: Deceptive Advertising, Deceptive Labels, Excessive Slack Fill