Edmundson filed a putative class action against P&G,
alleging that its ads for Fusion Power shaving handles and razor cartridges
violated the UCL and CLRA. The court of appeals affirmed the dismissal of the
claims on puffery grounds. P&G’s
claim that Fusion Power blades “have a patented blade coating for incredible
comfort” was not a claim of superiority to Fusion Manual cartridges, and, in
any event, was puffery: general, subjective, and untestable. Any superiority
message conveyed by P&G’s names and color coding for the two types of
cartridges, or by the fact that P & G charges more for Fusion Power
cartridges, was “even less specific and verifiable.” (A strikingly clear example of puffery the
advertiser intends to be material, and seemingly is: anyone who buys the more
expensive variant apparently gets nothing measurable for that, as a matter of
law.)
Edmundson failed to identify a claim that was sufficiently
specific with reference to particular product characteristics or criteria for
measuring a “better” shave that could be tested. Even assuming that P&G’s ads conveyed a
superiority message for Fusion Power, the ads didn’t assert superiority on
specific attributes such as closeness, comfort, irritation and pressure. Instead, the Fusion Power packaging just said
that the blades “have a patented bladed coating for incredible comfort.” Phrases such as “less irritation,” “more
comfort” and “reduce[d] pressure” were on the packaging for all Fusion
cartridges, and the comparison was between Fusion and P&G’s MACH3, not
between Fusion Power and Fusion Manual.
No comments:
Post a Comment