Lowe's pays $1.6 million settlement over 2x4 labeling

carlfense

carlfense

Heisman Trophy Winner
default_facepalm.gif


Lowe’s has new rules regarding how it can label building products in California. A Superior Court judge laid out terms by which the retailer must advertise its 2x4s and other dimensional materials in a $1.6 million settlement order and final judgement filed on August 27. The order, brought on as part of a civil consumer protection action, lists three main rules for the retailer to follow going forward:

  • “Common descriptions” must be followed by actual dimensions and labeled as such. For instance, a 2×4 must be followed with a disclaimer that the wood is actually 1.5-inches by 3.5-inches and include a phrase equal or similar to “actual dimensions.”
Click to expand...
http://threepercenternation.com/2014/09/litigation-nation-lowes-pays-1-6m-settlement-over-2x4-labeling/

 
Why would they only bring this suit against Lowes? Every single lumber yard and lumber company does this.

 
Better yet, who is the complete retard that didn't know 2x4's are not actually 2" by 4" when sold and covered their embarassment with a lawsuit? f'ing morons.

 
I am shocked that this hasn't been brought up before with all of the truth in labeling lawsuits that have come out over the years.

I am also shocked that a company had to pay that kind of a fine for basically following industry standards.

 
that seems like a small fine for a company the size of lowes, but i agree that it is odd to be penalized at all for following industry standards.

watch out subway, your "footlongs" are next.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
Why would they only bring this suit against Lowes? Every single lumber yard and lumber company does this.
Click to expand...
It's not clear they didn't bring suits against other lumber companies. They very well might have.

This was just a settlement reached by the Marin County DA and Lowes. The others could be pending.

Or maybe Home Depot made the right contributions to the right commissioners last election cycle...

This is hardly a "consumer protection" action. Looks more like a money grab by the county.

 
BigRedBuster said:
sd'sker said:
that seems like a small fine for a company the size of lowes, but i agree that it is odd to be penalized at all for following industry standards.

watch out subway, your "footlongs" are next.
Click to expand...
Funny you should mention that.

LINK
Click to expand...
i knew someone noticed that and they half-assed argued footlong is the given name for their bigger sandwich and not a literal unit of measurement, i did not know there was an actual suit or settlement.

 
That makes sense to me. I don't see why there shouldn't be a challenge if Subway is advertising a footlong sandwich but not offering what it would appear to claim to. Like companies being "creative" about how their hard drive "GB" capacity.

These particular challenges might not win, but there ought to be legal repercussions on companies who mislead in certain ways. They shouldn't get arbitrary reign over what to bill their products as, particularly if it doesn't reflect reality.

 
zoogies said:
That makes sense to me. I don't see why there shouldn't be a challenge if Subway is advertising a footlong sandwich but not offering what it would appear to claim to. Like companies being "creative" about how their hard drive "GB" capacity.

These particular challenges might not win, but there ought to be legal repercussions on companies who mislead in certain ways. They shouldn't get arbitrary reign over what to bill their products as, particularly if it doesn't reflect reality.
Click to expand...
I rushed my Subway footlong stored in my ref and measured the length. 11 and one-half inches. Ah ha, lawsuit is coming ......

 
Not a lawsuit but clamped down McDonalds/BurgerKing/Carl'sJr/TacoBell/KFC/etc. TV commercials. Yummy. In reality, real fast foods both taste and pictures was no comparison with yummy and delicious TV commercials. Kinda like false advertisements.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I wouldn't be surprised if there are many legal challenges of that nature. For the McDonald's advertisements, as with the Subway footlong, it's probably fine, but that's what the system is there for, to suss out cases where it is or isn't.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top