Gillette re-packaging could be costly

Further fall-out from the recent court case in which a judge ruled that Gillette's advertising for the M3Power razor was deceptive and misleading. According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

Gillette Co. could spend up to $1.6 million to change 6.5 million razor packages that claim its battery-powered Mach3 razor can lift hair up and away from the skin, the Boston-based company said Thursday in court papers.

After they lost the case, Gillette updated its website and commercials so they no longer featured the visuals that the court had ruled misleading. Gillette's competitor, Schick, which had brought the case against Gillette originally, says that Gillette has to change the packaging on it's razors, too.

Gillette said it would cost about $400,000 to resticker, or cover, the back panel of 3.3 million razor packages coming off its production lines or those stored in its regional distribution centers. And it would cost another $1.2 million to resticker about 3.2 million M3 Power packages already in the hands of retailers, Gillette said in a motion asking the court to clarify its injunction.

Gillette said razor package advertising that says, "Gentle micro-pulses stimulate hair up and away from the skin," isn't covered by the ruling.

Hmmm... I just can't seem to get enough of this legal stuff, can I?

Gillette gets a class-action suit

Hot on the heels of the reports that a US court has ruled that Gillette's M3Power ads were deceptive, the Boston Herald reports that a class action suit is being brought against Gillette by consumers in New York and Florida.

In a class-action suit filed yesterday, Mark Dearman of Florida and Anthony DeBiseglia of New York allege the company intentionally misrepresented its product.

They're looking for a refund of at least part of what they paid for the razors, according to their lawyer, Samuel H. Rudman of New York.

The class action includes all consumers in Florida and New York who bought the Gillette razor. Other suits will likely be filed on behalf of people in other states, Rudman said.

I don't know what burden of proof exists for cases like this, but it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

Shaving ads

The Australian has an interesting commentary in the wake of a recent court decision about Gillette's M3Power advertising campaign (mentioned previously here).

As a company executive explained last year: "Gillette and its competitors are developing more premium, expensive razors and blades. This is where the market is headed - both men and women are trading up. They want better products and will pay a premium price for them."

That's why it was hard not to feel satisfaction last week when a federal judge in Connecticut ruled that advertising by Gillette about the scientific advances associated with its M3Power shaving system was a load of rubbish.

The article takes a certain delight in slamming Gillette, and then noted:

At issue now is whether Gillette Australia - which is not bound by the decisions of US courts - will voluntarily abide by Judge Hall's decision or persist with making claims about the M3Power that have been judged fictional.

It's interesting, I've noticed a lot of resentment towards companies like Gillette. It seems a common sentiment that razor blade sales are a real cash cow, and bilk the consumer. I guess that's natural; I feel the same way when I'm looking at the prices of these blades at the supermarket.

Court slams Gillette

Back in April, I linked to some articles about Schick's lawsuit against Gillette, in which they said that Gillette's advertised claims about the M3Power were false and misleading (1, 2). Yahoo News has a press release about the results of the case:

Energizer Holdings, Inc. today announced that Judge Janet C. Hall of the United States District Court, District of Connecticut, granted Schick a preliminary injunction against false advertising claims by Gillette for its M3Power razor. The court found certain claims by Gillette for the M3Power to be "literally false."

Judge Hall determined that Gillette's claim that the M3Power raises hair up and away from the skin is both "unsubstantiated and inaccurate." The court found that that the product demonstrations in Gillette's advertising are "greatly exaggerated" and "literally false."

Gillette has to stop making the claims in its advertising within the next month, according to the injunction.

This is a big legal win for Schick, but they are also on the defensive in court over another matter. As mentioned earlier, Gillette is claiming that Schick's Quattro violates Gillette's patent for the Mach 3 (1). If Gillette wins that one, sales of the Quattro will be blocked in the US. That battle continues.

This all leaves me wondering, which razors do the lawyers use?

32 Microns

Coverage of the trial on the merits of the M3Power ad campaign continues in the Connecticut Post Online. Kevin Powell, director of Gillette's Advanced Technology Center, came from England to testify at the trial.

Powell described a series of tests of oscillating razors that indicated that vibrations extended hair sometimes as much as 83 microns, depending on the type of blade used. One micron equals approximately 0.00004 inch.

The M3P, according to Powell, extends hair approximately 32 microns, but he admitted he has never tested the current model being marketed, and his figures are based on a prototype.

The Gillette lab also ran tests to see if the way people prepare to shave affects hair extension. The tests showed that just about any time moisture is added to the skin, hair exposure is decreased, most likely because skin soaks up the moisture and hides some of the hair, Powell said. However, when a person rubs his or her face for 20 seconds with a dry finger, hair extends 19.8 microns, according to the tests. But Powell noted that shaving without moisture would be "excruciating." Powell also showed off some of his lab's technology.

Of course, there's more than one expert being called to testify.

Powell wasn't the only scientist questioned Wednesday. John Thornton, an independent statistical consultant who analyzed results from tests that Schick ran on the M3P to see if it performed as Gillette claimed, testified that the data revealed that "there was no significant statistical change in hair length with power on or power off."
But Thornton admitted that his conclusion is derived only from the test data he was given, and that one couldn't conclude that the M3P doesn't extend hair.

It's amazing how much money is involved in something so small. The "hair-lengthening" effect that Gillette is advertising is measured with a microscope, but it's worth untold millions of dollars to the company.

For comparison, hair for most people tends to grow about 200 to 400 microns per day, most of the time (as an estimate).

M3Power still in court

We've read before about Gillette being taken to court by Schick over it's claims that the M3Power razor's vibration feature causes hairs to stand up (1, 2). Schick won an injunction in Germany that prevented Gillette from advertising those claims. Now the two shaving giants are in court in the US, and the Connecticut Post Online has an article about the on-going trial.

Schick called several witnesses to the stand Tuesday, including its own director of marketing, Adel Mekhail, who, under cross examination, revealed that Schick was going to claim that its own vibrating razor raised hairs "before we found out it doesn't." Dr. David Leffell, a professor of dermatology and clinical surgery at Yale University School of Medicine, testified that he witnessed two tests in 2004 that indicated that vibrations from Gillette's M3P wouldn't cause hairs to be raised up.

Gillette, of course, denies Schick's claims.

Clay denied that his company made any false claims about its product and said that Gillette tests showed that hairs are elongated by 35 to 40 microns when the M3P is in use. One micron equals approximately 0.00004 inch.

I've always considered the claim that the M3Power causes the hair to stand up to be dubious at best. While I like Gillette's Mach 3 razor, I'm skeptical about their advertising claims, and disappointed in their marketing tactics in general.

M3Power comments

WCPO's Don't Waste Your Money has a short bit on the Gillette M3Power:

But is it really better than Gillette's top selling Mach 3 Turbo?

A half dozen men who work for our partner, Consumer Reports magazine, checked this one out.

After one week, most announced it shaved well... but was not noticeably better than the Mach 3, which has no battery.

They give it a B, and say that the Mach 3's a better buy. I tend to agree.

At least these guys shaved themselves and not fruit.

Speaking of the M3Power, it's still having legal problems around the world. I mentioned previously that Wilkonson Sword (owner of the Schick brand) had filed suit against certain claims made by Gillette, specifically the claim that the M3Power's vibrations caused the hair to stand up. In that case an injunction was granted in Germany preventing the claim from being aired in ads. Problems continue in Australia.

In that case and the subsequent Australian one, Energizer submitted the results of tests conducted by it and "observed" by Yale University dermatology professor, David Leffell.

According to Justice Hely, a special apparatus was used to demonstrate "a fully automated and controlled shaving stroke", yet Dr Leffell observed "no hair-raising or hair directional change effect". The Yale professor gave evidence to the Australian court by video link, as did Gillette experts, who disputed the findings, and maintained that the M3Power did create a "hair-extension effect".

In his judgement, Justice Hely said Energizer was developing, or at least investigating, a battery-powered oscillating razor of its own. That could lead to an inference that Energizer believed that such a razor would provide "enhanced shaving performance", the judge said, adding: "This matter was not disclosed on the application for an ex parte injunction. It should have been disclosed."

It will be interesting to see what happens with these cases.

Quattro legal, after all

According to this press release, Schick-Wilkinson Sword just won a victory in court against Gillette. A while back, Gillette had claimed in court that the Schick Quattro razor infringed on Gillette's patents.

"We are very pleased with the court's ruling that QUATTRO does not infringe Gillette's patent," said Joe Lynch, President, Schick-Wilkinson Sword. "Gillette has been very aggressive at attempting to impede the launch and sale of QUATTRO around the globe.

Gillette was also required to repay Schick-Wilkinson Sword's legal costs by the court.

Schick-Wilkinson Sword recently shot back at Gillette with their own court case.

To protect and shave

Is Your Scalp a Constitution-Free Zone?

Here's a curious item: in the United States, it's apparently legal for the authorities to remove your hair. That's right, the cops could shave your head, and there's nothing you can do about it.

And make no mistake. Under the Third Circuit's approach, the police can shave the hair of anyone who appears in public at any time. They do not need to have any reason whatsoever for suspecting the unwitting shavee of a crime.

Of course, I don't object to shaving one's head, but I figure it should be a choice left up to the individual, not something forced upon them by the authorities.

Granted, this isn't the type of thing that's too likely to happen to most people, but it's scary to think that it can happen.

M3Power in court

According to this website, Wilkinson Sword (maker of the Schick Quattro) has filed suit over Gillette's marketing claims for it's M3Power razor. Apparently, Wilkinson Sword wasn't buying into the claim that the M3Power's micro-pulses actually made the hair stand straighter.

Colin Hutchison, European vice president for Wilkinson Sword, says Gillette's claims about their new razor seemed improbable to them. Their scientists examined the razor and found Gillette's claims to be incorrect.

Undoubtedly, Gillette will fight this in the courts, but it should be interesting to see how this plays out.

Personally, I'm with Wilkinson Sword on this one. I doubt very much that the vibration feature (micro-pulses sounds so silly) actually makes the hairs stand up. I'll be really curious to see if Gillette can produce any evidence that it does what they say it does.