OxiClean Class Action Challenges Load Count

OxiClean products fail to contain the advertised number of laundry loads, according to a recent class action against manufacturer Church & Dwight.

OxiClean is a stain remover line that includes several types of products such as “Versatile,” “White Revive,” and more. Each OxiClean product is reportedly advertised with an expected number of laundry loads (290 loads, 156 loads, 75 loads, etc.).

The OxiClean class action lawsuit claims that the stain treater’s load estimates are inaccurate and deceive consumers into thinking they are getting more product.

With each load claim on OxiClean packaging, there is reportedly a “well-hidden” disclaimer stating that load estimates are based on filling the product scoop to line 1.

The OxiClean class action argues that basing load capacity on line 1 scoops is misleading since product instructions recommend filling the scoop to line 2 for “typical stains” and line 4 for “extra tough stains.”

Based on these discrepancies, the OxiClean class action argues that most consumers would either fail to get the advertised load count or would fail to adequately treat the stains as advertised.

“These ambiguities are no accident; they form a pattern of deception— prominently claiming on the front of the package to treat a certain number of loads while burying a microscopic, ambiguously worded disclaimer on the side panel,” the OxiClean class action lawsuit claims. “The deception’s form and substance are substantively identical for all styles and sizes of the Products.”

Although OxiClean load estimates have a disclaimer with them, the OxiClean class action argues that most consumers do not read the fine print before purchasing products. As many as 90 percent of consumers allegedly only read the front cover of products before deciding to make a purchase.

“Reasonable consumers routinely accept prominent front-of-packaging claims at face value and should not be expected to assume they are being deceived; it would be unreasonable to expect or demand that consumers pore over each product package to root out fine-print ‘disclaimers’ that contradict selling points prominently displayed on the front of the package,” the OxiClean class action argues.

Lead plaintiff Shelley Pridgen seeks to represent a Class of consumers who purchased any OxiClean powdered stain remover whose label stated that the product would treat a specified number of loads. Pridgen also seeks to represent a subclass of the same consumers from California.

The OxiClean class action seeks monetary damages, compensatory damages, incidental damages, consequential damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, interest, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, equitable relief, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

Pridgen and the proposed Class are represented by Michael R. Reese, Sue J. Nam, and George V. Granade of Reese LLP and Matthew D. Schultz and Brenton Goodman of Levin Papantonio Thomas Mitchell Rafferty & Proctor PA.

The OxiClean Class Action Lawsuit is Pridgen v. Church & Dwight Co. Inc., Case No. 8:19-cv-01683, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Apple, Samsung Class Action Says Phones Emit Radiation

What Are Symptoms of Hernia Mesh Problems?

Amazon Class Action Says Website Sells Recalled Items

Hurricane Florence Flood Insurance Payouts Approach $600M in North Carolina