Sixlets Class Action Says Candy Boxes are 60% Empty

Sweetworks Confections was hit with a class action lawsuit alleging boxes of its Sixlets candy are only filled part way and are sometimes as much as 60 percent empty.

Lead plaintiff Dominique Green alleges in her class action lawsuit that Sweetworks shortchanges customers by selling a non-transparent box only half-filled with candy.

The plaintiff claims Sweetworks exceeds the amount of “slack-fill” or air permitted under Food and Drug Administration regulations.

Green alleges that she purchased the chocolate candy in a box that said it contained 3.5 oz. for $0.50 at a Kmart in New York. She says her box was over half empty and because Sweetworks uses standardized methods to fill boxes, other consumers were deceived by half empty boxes as well.

“Slack-fill is air or filler material within a packaged product. Non-functional slack-fill is slack-fill that serves no legitimate purpose, and misleads consumers about the quantity of food they are purchasing. When consumers purchase a package of Defendant’s Product, they are getting less candy than they bargained for. They are effectively tricked into paying for air, because each Product box contains a large amount of non-functional slack-fill,” explains the Sixlets class action lawsuit.

The plaintiff alleges that Sweetworks includes excessive slack-fill in the larger sized box of Sixlets it sells. As evidence the plaintiff points to the smaller sized box that is about half the size.

“That the slack-fill in the Product is non-functional is proven in comparison to Defendant’s other Sixlets candy box, which is almost exactly half the size of the Product box, but contains the same quantity of candy…The Smaller Sixlets box is the exact same weight as Plaintiff’s Product box – yet is nearly half the size of the Product’s container,” alleges the Sixlets class action lawsuit.

The Sixlets class action lawsuit also points out that a similar candy, Milk Duds, in contrast are sold in boxes that are 77 percent full.

The plaintiff says that she and others relied on representations on the larger Sixlets box about the amount of candy they were purchasing; however, those representations were deceptive and misleading. Other candy makers include windows on boxes so purchasers can see the amount of candy they are buying, points out the Sixlets class action lawsuit, but Sweetworks does not.

Green seeks to represent a nationwide Class of consumers who purchased the 3.5 oz. variety of Sixlets from retailers, including Kmart, Walgreens, and other major outlets.

The plaintiff says Sweetworks violated laws “that are designed to protect consumers against unfair, deceptive, fraudulent and unconscionable trade and business practices and false advertising” in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The plaintiff is seeking all recoverable compensatory and other damages, as well as actual and/or statutory damages. She also wants a court order stopping Sweetworks from selling Sixlets with excess slack-fill.

Green is represented by C.K. Lee and Anne Seelig of Lee Litigation Group PLLC.

The Sixlets Slack-Fill Class Action Lawsuit is Green v. Sweetworks Confections LLC, Case No. 7:18-cv-00902, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.