Duracell Batteries with the Duralock Ring

In March 2016, a federal judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed against Gillette and Procter & Gamble alleging that the marketing for Duracell AA and AAA Copper Top batteries with the Duralock ring is misleading.

Among other things, the complaint, which was originally filed in November 2014, alleged that various marketing materials – including the product packaging, as well as television and radio commercials – misleadingly represent that the Duralock ring batteries are guaranteed for 10 years while in storage, without adequately disclosing that the batteries may leak when stored or used in an expected way and can damage devices.

The judge dismissed the false advertising claims finding, among other things, that reasonable consumers would not interpret the Duralock guarantee to be a promise that the batteries have “no potential to leak for ten years in storage.” The judge dismissed the false advertising claims with prejudice.

(Punian et al v. The Gillette Company and The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 14-cv-5028, N. D. CA.)

For more information about other class-action lawsuits regarding Duracell batteries and TINA.org’s coverage of the product, click here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled.

Tags:



Leave a Reply

Back to Top ↑
  • Search Class-Action Tracker



  • Recent Class Actions

  • The Class-Action Tracker is intended to notify consumers about false advertising class-action lawsuits filed around the country, but does not necessarily reflect TINA.org’s opinion with respect to the lawsuits or disposition of the cases

  • Sign Up for E-mail Updates