SANTA ANA, Calif. (Legal Newsline) – A woman is suing the maker of OxiClean powdered stain removal over allegations it misrepresents the number of loads one container can treat.
Shelley Pridgen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, filed a complaint on Sept. 3 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Church & Dwight Co. Inc., alleging violation of False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law and other counts.
The suit states that the defendant is the maker of OxiClean and the OxiClean line of products. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has been deceptive in the representations made about the number of loads that a consumer will get from a package and how effective the treatment of the product will be.
She alleges the powdered stain removers' packaging states that the product "delivers" a certain amount regular loads when the product is measured to line one on the scoop.
"It is not clear what 'delivering' a load means; but if it is intended to mean 'treating' a load, it is a suspiciously ambiguous phrasing and that interpretation is belied by the back panel instruction that, in order to treat 'typical stains,' one must fill the scoop to at least line two," the suit states.
"In other words, to achieve the 'stain removing' benefit of this stain remover, one must use more than the line one amount on the scoop; or, said differently, one can treat only a fraction of the advertised number of loads for 'typical stains,' while heavier stains require even more powder, thus further reducing the load capacity of the product.
The plaintiff alleges that had she known about the alleged misleading representation, she would not have purchased it.
The plaintiff is seeking a trial by jury, attorneys' fees, court costs, interest and just relief. The plaintiff is represented by Michael R. Reese and Sue J. Nam of Reese LLP in New York City; George V. Granade of Reese LLP in Los Angeles; and Matthew D. Schultz and Brenton Goodman of Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Rafferty & Proctor in Pensacola, Florida.
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case number 8:19-CV-01683