Duralock Batteries

In October 2015, a federal judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit against the makers of Duracell batteries alleging, among other things, that the marketing (including TV and radio commercials, and product packaging) for Duralock batteries is misleading.

The complaint, which was originally filed against The Gillette Company and Procter & Gamble in 2014, alleged that the companies deceptively marketed batteries marked with the “Duralock ring” as being “guaranteed for 10 years in storage” without adequately disclosing that they leak when not in use and can damage devices.

The judge dismissed the entire complaint, finding, among other things, that the alleged misrepresentation was not actionable because the guarantee “is simply not a promise that the batteries have no potential whatsoever to leak or otherwise fail within that time.” The judge also found that the complaint did not sufficiently allege that “any relevant leakage problem” was important to consumers. To read the full order and learn more, click here.

(Carlson et al v. The Gillette Company and The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 14-cv-14201, D. MA.)

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

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