NM Sues Dollar General Over SA Oil

[fdcg27]

This is just so silly.
The oil was labeled as what it was. No deception involved.
You also have to ask whether that old beater Buick or Expedition would be better off with a couple of quarts of this stuff as an add or with no oil showing on the dipstick.
DG deceived nobody and did not print anything untruthful on its oil container labels.
Therefore these suits are without merit and should be dismissed by any responsible judge.
The courts are not and never were intended to be the oil quality police. Its is their sole job in this sort of case to prevent deception, and there was no deception here.
If people can't read, then that's their problem and not any sort of tort.

 

[2heeldrive]

It would be interesting to do an analysis on that oil.

I wonder what's in it?

 

[69GTX]

Originally Posted By: twoheeldrive
It would be interesting to do an analysis on that oil.

I wonder what's in it?




Apparently, there's nothing in the API SAE30 "SA" level variant. I could use that to lube my bicycle chain. As a matter of fact, I do. My neighbor gave it me along with other semi-useless automobile-related products when he cleaned out his shed. ACCEL brand SAE30 with the same verbage as DG. It could serve a purpose in stationary automobile engines that are never run....just poured all over it to keep rust from forming.

 

[Ducked]

SF is a bit different to SA. IIRC it's within spec. for my car, for example, so there will be a few people out there who could reasonably use it, (unlike SA, where there will be almost none) and the consequences of its miss-use aren't likely to be so severe.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
I don't want oil that isn't certified on the shelves. But if the oil is certified, even if the spec is outdated, as long as it clearly states which spec it is and what years of vehicles it can be used in, it is totally fine for it to be on the shelves.


Again, the DG oil is NOT certified!

Ironically, I found where there started using a SN oil... hummm

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc



Technically, my mother (she can see but meets the definition of being legally blind)...


Well if that's the case, then they must after this spend forever taking on the drug companies for their microfine "information" leaflets in their drug packets...

If THAT's providing adequate information for the consumer, with something far more important than an engine (life/health), then this case is junk...if this case gets up, then drug companies clearly must be next.


Actually, that is why the Pharmacist will verbally go over a given drug/information with anyone who can not read the labeling... and take forever doing it (even if you are not blind). There are mechanisms for distributing that information but the drug companies are a different animal....

US literacy rate is about 85% for adults. So 2 people in about 15 are illiterate. Worse, about 1/4 of the adult population read at below at or below a elementary level (not smarter than a 5th grader). I would make an decent argument that the DG's core customer population will be challenged to both read and read at a sufficient level. I would not be surprised if 1 in 3 of the DG customers are illiterate and half and limited in their reading ability.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc

Again, the DG oil is NOT certified!


It CAN'T be certified to SA...just like Mobil 1 can't be certified to CF...but it's on the label.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc

Again, the DG oil is NOT certified!


It CAN'T be certified to SA...just like Mobil 1 can't be certified to CF...but it's on the label.


I don't know exactly the labeling/requirements in Oz but...

Actually, Mobil is a bit more specific with their labeling and specs. They say "meets or exceeds" before their listing.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc

Again, the DG oil is NOT certified!


It CAN'T be certified to SA...just like Mobil 1 can't be certified to CF...but it's on the label.


I don't know exactly the labeling/requirements in Oz but...

Actually, Mobil is a bit more specific with their labeling and specs. They say "meets or exceeds" before their listing.


What I said...you actually CAN'T certify against SA, nor CF...

You can CLAIM either "levels of performance" without being misleading.

(oh, and it's not "Oz", but "API")

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc

Again, the DG oil is NOT certified!


It CAN'T be certified to SA...just like Mobil 1 can't be certified to CF...but it's on the label.


I don't know exactly the labeling/requirements in Oz but...

Actually, Mobil is a bit more specific with their labeling and specs. They say "meets or exceeds" before their listing.


What I said...you actually CAN'T certify against SA, nor CF...

You can CLAIM either "levels of performance" without being misleading.

(oh, and it's not "Oz", but "API")


But the Mobil 1 is actually claiming current categories (unlike DG with SF). SM and SL are still "current" certified API service specs.

DG is not claiming just "levels of performance" but actually that it is API SF (or SA). DG is being misleading.

(Oh, does Oz not stand for Australia? API is American Petroleum Institute... did not know where you live so and did not want to be overly US centric if you were Oz-land... as I do not know all the international labeling quirks)

 

[Linctex]

Originally Posted By: blupupher

So people don't need to take responsibility for their actions?
"It's not my fault" is not an excuse.
Just because someone make an uninformed bad decision does not mean there are not consequences to that action. The bottles are labeled according to the law. The warning is on the bottle.


I agree with this, and it applies to 99% of society today.

People have been told/taught/trained that there is no consequences anymore for being uninformed....
or for being just plain stupid.

We actually *NEED* to get back to the place where people learn to be accountable again.

We've become a society of blame....... ("not my fault....")

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: Linctex
I agree with this, and it applies to 99% of society today.

People have been told/taught/trained that there is no consequences anymore for being uninformed....
or for being just plain stupid.

We actually *NEED* to get back to the place where people learn to be accountable again.

We've become a society of blame....... ("not my fault....")


And it is at its worse at the corporate level. DG is saying it is not *their* fault because it's customers are stupid. The whole point of a corporation (and a LLC) is to shield individuals from blame/liability. You can't put up disclaimers and then try and absolve oneself of liability while in the pursuit of profit.

If a company knowingly sells a substandard product and/or hides it with deceptive packaging (as with the SF oil in particular), then yeah, they should get hosed in the courtroom.

 

[Dallas69]

If it is not to be used in modern engines it should say so on the front and in big letters.
This should not even be sold as motor oil.

 

[Triton_330]

Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
I don't want oil that isn't certified on the shelves. But if the oil is certified, even if the spec is outdated, as long as it clearly states which spec it is and what years of vehicles it can be used in, it is totally fine for it to be on the shelves.


Again, the DG oil is NOT certified!

Ironically, I found where there started using a SN oil... hummm

Clearly you missed where I said THIS:

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
If they aren't truly API certified then yah I would suggest removing them from the shelves.


If you think I'm lying about it, go back and re-read it; that *is* what I said.

---

Anywho, I went to DG today and snapped this picture:

(Sorry about the bad quality; old phone plus shaky hand = not so great pics)

They had 5w30, 10w30 [as shown], and 10w-40 ALL API service SN & ILSAC GF-5. I didn't see a 5w-20, but there was an empty section so it's possible they either may be getting it soon or were sold out of it.

I also noticed that, unlike in your picture where the old oil was sitting next to the new, at my DG there were absolutely ZERO of the old bottles. They took them all off the shelves.

I will say though, that for an API SN GF-5 oil, Dollar General's oil prices are pretty decent. $2.85 isn't the best price as it could be lower (like Walmart's SuperTech oils), but when you see Peak oil sitting next to DG oil at around $3.75 or $3.50 (though I believe it was on sale for $3.00 today), as well as seeing Castrol oil next to Peak at around like $4.50 give or take a quarter... DG's oil is decently priced.

 

[Garak]

I would suggest that if the product you photographed is, indeed, SN/GF-5, DG needs to go back and reread the labelling rules.

 

[Triton_330]

Originally Posted By: Garak
I would suggest that if the product you photographed is, indeed, SN/GF-5, DG needs to go back and reread the labelling rules.


Yeah, I know you're referring to the lack of the starburst on the front, but I did a quick google image search and they at least sport the donut on the back:

Sooo... with that in mind... the question is - are they actually certified since the donut is there, but breaking the rules with the lack of the starburst? Or... are they pretending to be certified using the donut?

Also I'm unsure of the rules regarding the wording here:

What's the verdict - can anyone confirm or deny?

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Triton_330
Sooo... with that in mind... the question is - are they actually certified since the donut is there, but breaking the rules with the lack of the starburst? Or... are they pretending to be certified using the donut?

I believe they are actually certified. It seems to me that in one of these previous threads, someone checked.

My concern is that if a company is marketing both certified and non-certified oils, it had better ensure that the certified ones are marked correctly to the letter of the rules, to prevent any confusion and to avoid any hint that they're flouting the rules. The rules aren't that complex. There's a reason to be cautious when labelling. All the oil companies that I can think of make certain non-certified examples, be they oddball HDEOs or ND SAE 30.

If, on the other hand, the stuff is non-certified and is sporting the API Donut, I don't think things will turn out well for them. That would clearly be inappropriate and that's the kind of thing you get your knuckles rapped.

In any event, I get a bit conflicted about all this, as I've said in other similar threads. There are purposes for things like low additive or ND oils. How many people, though, go to a DG for a compressor fill or to service their Model T?

 

[Tom NJ]

Oils certified under ILSAC GF-5 are permitted to display the Starburst symbol, but are not required to do so. On the 10w30, DG may have decided to keep the front label simple and not have the Starburst interfere with their checkered flag, or felt the symbol was unnecessary given that GF-5 was prominently written on the front label. The 10W-40 grade does not claim GF-5, and likely does not meet the fuel economy requirements of GF-5 as the Donut does not say "Resource Conserving".

 

[Garak]

Yes, the 10w-40 seems fine; it's obviously not an ILSAC lube. It's good that they're really not violating the rules on the ILSAC grade then, but there is a reason the Starburst exists, and it's for public visibility. Some oils make gibberish claims about compliance, which is why it's nice to see the appropriate markings, where applicable. I would still maintain if you have an SA oil besides an SN oil, you had better have your labelling ducks in a row.