Procter & Gamble (P&G), a household name synonymous with everyday essentials, has found itself entangled in several lawsuits in recent years. These cases highlight various consumer protection concerns, raising questions about product marketing and ingredient transparency.

One recent lawsuit dotyczy (dotyczy – Polish for “concerns”) NyQuil and DayQuil, popular cold and flu remedies [3]. The plaintiff alleges that P&G misled consumers by prominently featuring “made with real honey” or “flavored with real honey” on the packaging, despite honey being absent from the ingredient list [3]. This lawsuit, filed in 2023, centers around unfair business practices and deceptive advertising, potentially violating the Consumer Legal Remedies Act [3].

Another case involved a wider range of P&G products, including Secret, Old Spice, and Pantene aerosols [2]. This lawsuit, settled in 2021, alleged that these products were marketed without disclosing the presence of benzene, a potential carcinogen [2]. While P&G maintains its marketing was truthful, the lawsuit highlights the importance of clear ingredient disclosure for consumer safety [2].

P&G has also faced legal challenges beyond product marketing. A 2022 Supreme Court case involved a former employee’s gender bias claim, which the court ultimately declined to hear [5]. This case, while not directly related to consumer products, demonstrates the various legal issues that can arise for a large corporation.

These lawsuits serve as reminders for both consumers and corporations. Consumers should be critical of marketing claims and pay close attention to ingredient lists. Corporations have a responsibility to ensure transparency and accuracy in their marketing and to prioritize consumer safety.

References:

[3] Law.com Radar (2023). Class Action Claims Procter & Gamble Misrepresented DayQuil, NyQuil Ingredients
[2] In re. Procter & Gamble Aerosol Products Marketing & Sales Practices Litigation
[5] HR Dive (2022). Supreme Court declines to hear former Proctor & Gamble employee’s gender bias case

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *