Watkins, by contrast, sells its pepper in smaller, clear containers that allow customers to see the contents directly. According to Watkins, both brands now offer the same amount of pepper by weight, but McCormick’s packaging makes its product appear larger and more substantial on the shelf. The argument is not about legality alone, but about perception. When two products contain the same quantity but one looks bigger, consumers are naturally drawn to what seems like the better deal.
For consumers, the effect is both financial and psychological. Most shoppers rely on visual cues to assess value, especially for everyday items like spices. A taller or wider container signals abundance, even when that signal is no longer accurate. When McCormick and Watkins products sit side by side, the visual comparison favors the larger-looking container, despite equal contents. Over time, these small misjudgments add up.
McCormick’s defense rests on technical correctness. The company points out that the net weight is clearly printed on the label and that consumers are responsible for reading it. From a legal standpoint, that argument carries weight. From a practical standpoint, critics say it ignores how people actually shop. Brands invest heavily in design precisely because they know consumers do not study labels line by line. Visual impression is not an accident; it is the point.
The dispute escalated when McCormick customers filed a class action lawsuit, claiming they were misled by the packaging change. These customers argue that they continued buying the product under the assumption that it contained the same amount as before. The case has moved into federal court, where judges will have to consider not just what is technically disclosed, but whether the overall presentation creates a deceptive impression.
Beyond the courtroom, the situation highlights a deeper issue: trust. Brands like McCormick are built over decades, often passed down through generations of households. That trust is fragile. When consumers feel tricked, even subtly, the damage can linger long after the legal arguments fade. A company may win a case and still lose goodwill.
SEE CONTINUES ON THE NEXT PAGE
