Gillette Class Action: Shaving Gel Can Doesn’t Contain Enough Product

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A Gillette class action lawsuit claims that Procter & Gamble’s shaving cream cans do not contain enough product, and the gel is deceptively packaged to mislead consumers into believing they are receiving more than they are.

The Gillette class action lawsuit was originally filed in California state court, but the case was removed to federal court last week. 

Plaintiff Ivan Foronda claims that he purchased a can of Gillette Fusion ProGlide Sensitive 2-in-1 Shave Gel for his personal use.

He says the product contains too much air and not enough product, and that the air in the container, along with the nature of the packaging serve no purpose other than to mislead consumers.

The Gillette shaving cream class action lawsuit states that consumers have no way of telling how much product is in the container, as the container is opaque, and are misled into believing the can’s contents correspond to the size of the can.

Additionally, the plaintiff claims that the container is defective and causes the product to randomly dispense from the can, causing consumers to lose some of the product that they paid for.

Foronda says that he and all other consumers who purchased the Gillette Fusion ProGlide Sensitive 2-in-1 Shave Gel were financially injured by their purchase because they would not have bought the shaving cream at all or would not have paid as much for it had they known that it did not contain as much product as appeared to be in the container.

The plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of himself and all similarly affected consumers, to compensate for  financial injury.

Foronda aims to hold Procter & Gamble accountable for consumers’ financial injury. The Gillette slack-fill class action lawsuit makes claims against Procter & Gamble and associated companies of false advertising, defective product design, negligence, unfair business practices, and negligent misrepresentation.

Additionally, the Gillette shaving gel class action lawsuit claims that the company breached its warranty and violated product liability law. The plaintiff also argues that because of these infractions, the profits gained by Procter & Gamble represent unjust enrichment.

Foronda alleges that the product contains too much air, violating the Code of Federal Regulations’ guidelines on how much air a product packaging can contain.

He states that the Code dictates that a product’s packaging can contain air, or “slack-fill” if it is functional, serving to protect the product inside, as a necessity of the product’s manufacturing, among other purposes.

Federal law allegedly prohibits products from containing slack-fill that performs no purpose, and allegedly, the empty space in the shaving cream can falls into this category.

The Gillette shaving cream packaging class action lawsuit claims that the can of shaving cream contains roughly 45 percent slack-fill, which performs no functional purpose.

Allegedly, as the can is opaque, consumers have no choice but to rely on the size and shape of the container to discern how much product is in the can.

However, the can is allegedly intentionally designed to mislead consumers into thinking they are receiving a certain amount of product while delivering far less, thereby causing consumers to effectively pay for air.

Foronda is represented by Marc Lazo of Wilson Keadjian Browndorf LLP.

The Gillette 2-in-1 Shaving Cream Can Slack-Fill Class Action Lawsuit is Ivan Foronda v. The Procter & Gamble Company, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-06844-DMG-SK, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.