NM Sues Dollar General Over SA Oil
- Thread starter SF0059
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
This is one place where regulations are useful. It's too bad that there are too many regulations on the books that are not useful.
Exactly. He have to have all these regulations, but where one should be it isn't. Amish are allowed to let there horse take a dump on the road, while people have to clean up after there dogs and you can't litter. Go figure.
This is one place where regulations are useful. It's too bad that there are too many regulations on the books that are not useful.
Exactly. He have to have all these regulations, but where one should be it isn't. Amish are allowed to let there horse take a dump on the road, while people have to clean up after there dogs and you can't litter. Go figure.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I hope Dollar General and the judge told NM to go jump off a cliff. Numbnut customers need to READ THE LABEL. READ people READ! There is absolutely no deceptive advertising whatsoever. Every grocery store here in town sells non detergent oil with that same exact disclaimer on the label.
I disagree.
For protecting the consumer, you have to take into consideration that not all consumers are both literate and/or native speaker/readers. Just because someone in unable or incapable to reading fine print or labeling does not give a person or company the legal green-light to rip people off.
Technically, my mother (she can see but meets the definition of being legally blind) would not be able to read that back label. She could see the 10w30 but would be unable to read the disclaimer. No, you have to protect the consumer at the lowest "minimum" level possible... including stupidity at times.
Not only that, but placement of information can be done to highlight or diminish information. Thus "Lubricates and protects your engine" is easy to read but the SF rating is buried.
I hope Dollar General and the judge told NM to go jump off a cliff. Numbnut customers need to READ THE LABEL. READ people READ! There is absolutely no deceptive advertising whatsoever. Every grocery store here in town sells non detergent oil with that same exact disclaimer on the label.
I disagree.
For protecting the consumer, you have to take into consideration that not all consumers are both literate and/or native speaker/readers. Just because someone in unable or incapable to reading fine print or labeling does not give a person or company the legal green-light to rip people off.
Technically, my mother (she can see but meets the definition of being legally blind) would not be able to read that back label. She could see the 10w30 but would be unable to read the disclaimer. No, you have to protect the consumer at the lowest "minimum" level possible... including stupidity at times.
Not only that, but placement of information can be done to highlight or diminish information. Thus "Lubricates and protects your engine" is easy to read but the SF rating is buried.
Tom NJ
$100 Site Donor 2026
The front label says "Lubricates and protects your engine" when in fact it does not adequately protect engines built in the past 29 years according to the SAE. The front label also shows a checkered racing flag which clearly implies high performance to most people. The smaller print in the middle of the back label says don't use it in 99% of engines on the road. This is intentional deception, telling consumers on the front label that it is a high performance oil and fine for "your engine", and counting on consumers to read no further.
It's like a tube of toothpaste that say "Cleaner Brighter Teeth" with an image of a sparkling smile on the front of the box, and on the back says "Contains sand - Do not use on teeth". Where do we draw the line?
You can be sure that DG knew from their sales figures that many thousands of customers were walking out of their stores with oil that could damage their engines, so where was their responsibility? What was their motive? Should marketers be allowed with immunity to intentionally deceive consumers into buying potentially harmful products, or is all the blame on the victim for trusting what the marketer told them on the front label?
"Buyer Beware" does not apply when marketers intentionally deceive.
Tom NJ
It's like a tube of toothpaste that say "Cleaner Brighter Teeth" with an image of a sparkling smile on the front of the box, and on the back says "Contains sand - Do not use on teeth". Where do we draw the line?
You can be sure that DG knew from their sales figures that many thousands of customers were walking out of their stores with oil that could damage their engines, so where was their responsibility? What was their motive? Should marketers be allowed with immunity to intentionally deceive consumers into buying potentially harmful products, or is all the blame on the victim for trusting what the marketer told them on the front label?
"Buyer Beware" does not apply when marketers intentionally deceive.
Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
There is a big difference in people making choices about food and drinks, versus oil that could potentially destroy their engines.
You're right, there is a big difference. People's health is FAR more important than the oil they put in their engines.
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
2) give the station a bad rep, and 3) put him at risk for a lawsuit.
People will blame the oil, not where they bought it. A lawsuit against the station owner would never hold up in court either....
There is a big difference in people making choices about food and drinks, versus oil that could potentially destroy their engines.
You're right, there is a big difference. People's health is FAR more important than the oil they put in their engines.
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
2) give the station a bad rep, and 3) put him at risk for a lawsuit.
People will blame the oil, not where they bought it. A lawsuit against the station owner would never hold up in court either....
Originally Posted By: hallstevenson
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
There is a big difference in people making choices about food and drinks, versus oil that could potentially destroy their engines.
You're right, there is a big difference. People's health is FAR more important than the oil they put in their engines.
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
2) give the station a bad rep, and 3) put him at risk for a lawsuit.
People will blame the oil, not where they bought it. A lawsuit against the station owner would never hold up in court either....
This is BobIsTheOilGuy Forums, not BobIsTheHealthGuy Forums. When the subject I was speaking about was oil without API certification, you had no business comparing it to food, period. It doesn't matter if you're right about health - you are - but it's irrelevant, man.
Secondly did you even read this thread? DG is in trouble because they were selling the oil. If it was another brand, like Super Duper X SAE 30, DG would still be the one's in trouble for selling the oil.
The bottle (in regards to this thread's OP) states it's API cert is A, which yes is super obsolete, but it still states everything it needs to on the bottle.
What *I* was trying to say is that the only people that should be in trouble are the places selling oil without any API certs whatsoever.
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
There is a big difference in people making choices about food and drinks, versus oil that could potentially destroy their engines.
You're right, there is a big difference. People's health is FAR more important than the oil they put in their engines.
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
2) give the station a bad rep, and 3) put him at risk for a lawsuit.
People will blame the oil, not where they bought it. A lawsuit against the station owner would never hold up in court either....
This is BobIsTheOilGuy Forums, not BobIsTheHealthGuy Forums. When the subject I was speaking about was oil without API certification, you had no business comparing it to food, period. It doesn't matter if you're right about health - you are - but it's irrelevant, man.
Secondly did you even read this thread? DG is in trouble because they were selling the oil. If it was another brand, like Super Duper X SAE 30, DG would still be the one's in trouble for selling the oil.
The bottle (in regards to this thread's OP) states it's API cert is A, which yes is super obsolete, but it still states everything it needs to on the bottle.
What *I* was trying to say is that the only people that should be in trouble are the places selling oil without any API certs whatsoever.
Quote:
What *I* was trying to say is that the only people that should be in trouble are the places selling oil without any API certs whatsoever.
And that is exactly what is happening.
"SA" is NOT a current API certification. Only SJ and newer are current API certs categories. The lawsuit is filing for both the SF and SA misrepresentation. Thus both the SA and SF are in the legal cross-hairs for misrepresentation.
What *I* was trying to say is that the only people that should be in trouble are the places selling oil without any API certs whatsoever.
And that is exactly what is happening.
"SA" is NOT a current API certification. Only SJ and newer are current API certs categories. The lawsuit is filing for both the SF and SA misrepresentation. Thus both the SA and SF are in the legal cross-hairs for misrepresentation.
So why is Walmart not being sued? I have seen SA oil there before, and just like these, nothing on the front saying not to use it in modern vehicles.
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
... No, you have to protect the consumer at the lowest "minimum" level possible... including stupidity at times.
...
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.
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
... No, you have to protect the consumer at the lowest "minimum" level possible... including stupidity at times.
...
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.
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Quote:
What *I* was trying to say is that the only people that should be in trouble are the places selling oil without any API certs whatsoever.
And that is exactly what is happening.
"SA" is NOT a current API certification. Only SJ and newer are current API certs categories. The lawsuit is filing for both the SF and SA misrepresentation. Thus both the SA and SF are in the legal cross-hairs for misrepresentation.
Nothing was being misrepresented. The bottles both say exactly what they are. It's the customer's fault for not looking at what they were buying. There's no reason for DG to have to stop placing those oils on their shelves. They are labeled as to what they are. If idiots buy them and mess up their cars, that's their own fault.
People who don't understand oil specs shouldn't be changing their own oil in the first place. *They* should be going to a mechanic shop or dealer to have their oil changed.
Quote:
What *I* was trying to say is that the only people that should be in trouble are the places selling oil without any API certs whatsoever.
And that is exactly what is happening.
"SA" is NOT a current API certification. Only SJ and newer are current API certs categories. The lawsuit is filing for both the SF and SA misrepresentation. Thus both the SA and SF are in the legal cross-hairs for misrepresentation.
Nothing was being misrepresented. The bottles both say exactly what they are. It's the customer's fault for not looking at what they were buying. There's no reason for DG to have to stop placing those oils on their shelves. They are labeled as to what they are. If idiots buy them and mess up their cars, that's their own fault.
People who don't understand oil specs shouldn't be changing their own oil in the first place. *They* should be going to a mechanic shop or dealer to have their oil changed.
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Quote:
What *I* was trying to say is that the only people that should be in trouble are the places selling oil without any API certs whatsoever.
And that is exactly what is happening.
"SA" is NOT a current API certification. Only SJ and newer are current API certs categories. The lawsuit is filing for both the SF and SA misrepresentation. Thus both the SA and SF are in the legal cross-hairs for misrepresentation.
Nothing was being misrepresented. The bottles both say exactly what they are. It's the customer's fault for not looking at what they were buying. There's no reason for DG to have to stop placing those oils on their shelves. They are labeled as to what they are. If idiots buy them and mess up their cars, that's their own fault.
People who don't understand oil specs shouldn't be changing their own oil in the first place. *They* should be going to a mechanic shop or dealer to have their oil changed.
It is not a recognized and currently used spec! That is the exact problem! You can't call it a "API Service Category SF" if API does not consider that "category" a current service category. Worse, the bottle says "SF quality" which means they have likely not really gone for that service quality! It lacks both the donut and the starbust!
It is bad when the BITOG poster does not know what the API categories mean so what about the less-than-average (which is about half of the population) consumer thinking?
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Quote:
What *I* was trying to say is that the only people that should be in trouble are the places selling oil without any API certs whatsoever.
And that is exactly what is happening.
"SA" is NOT a current API certification. Only SJ and newer are current API certs categories. The lawsuit is filing for both the SF and SA misrepresentation. Thus both the SA and SF are in the legal cross-hairs for misrepresentation.
Nothing was being misrepresented. The bottles both say exactly what they are. It's the customer's fault for not looking at what they were buying. There's no reason for DG to have to stop placing those oils on their shelves. They are labeled as to what they are. If idiots buy them and mess up their cars, that's their own fault.
People who don't understand oil specs shouldn't be changing their own oil in the first place. *They* should be going to a mechanic shop or dealer to have their oil changed.
It is not a recognized and currently used spec! That is the exact problem! You can't call it a "API Service Category SF" if API does not consider that "category" a current service category. Worse, the bottle says "SF quality" which means they have likely not really gone for that service quality! It lacks both the donut and the starbust!
It is bad when the BITOG poster does not know what the API categories mean so what about the less-than-average (which is about half of the population) consumer thinking?
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Quote:
What *I* was trying to say is that the only people that should be in trouble are the places selling oil without any API certs whatsoever.
And that is exactly what is happening.
"SA" is NOT a current API certification. Only SJ and newer are current API certs categories. The lawsuit is filing for both the SF and SA misrepresentation. Thus both the SA and SF are in the legal cross-hairs for misrepresentation.
Nothing was being misrepresented. The bottles both say exactly what they are. It's the customer's fault for not looking at what they were buying. There's no reason for DG to have to stop placing those oils on their shelves. They are labeled as to what they are. If idiots buy them and mess up their cars, that's their own fault.
People who don't understand oil specs shouldn't be changing their own oil in the first place. *They* should be going to a mechanic shop or dealer to have their oil changed.
It is not a recognized and currently used spec! That is the exact problem! You can't call it a "API Service Category SF" if API does not consider that "category" a current service category. Worse, the bottle says "SF quality" which means they have likely not really gone for that service quality! It lacks both the donut and the starbust!
It is bad when the BITOG poster does not know what the API categories mean so what about the less-than-average (which is about half of the population) consumer thinking?
*****, dude I know what the specs are and what they mean. The reason we're arguing is more than likely political. I know those are old specs! If they aren't truly API certified then yah I would suggest removing them from the shelves. But if they are API certified, I don't care if the spec is out of date, as long as the spec is listed on the bottle, there is no deceit happening.
If the bottle clearly states its API spec, there should be no problem. It's the customers duty to know what their vehicle needs. If they don't know what kind of oil their car needs, it's their own fault if they buy improper oil for their vehicle.
As I have said before, I once told a manager of a gas station that he was selling oil that did NOT have any API certification, and he told me to leave.
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.
Originally Posted By: Triton_330
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
Quote:
What *I* was trying to say is that the only people that should be in trouble are the places selling oil without any API certs whatsoever.
And that is exactly what is happening.
"SA" is NOT a current API certification. Only SJ and newer are current API certs categories. The lawsuit is filing for both the SF and SA misrepresentation. Thus both the SA and SF are in the legal cross-hairs for misrepresentation.
Nothing was being misrepresented. The bottles both say exactly what they are. It's the customer's fault for not looking at what they were buying. There's no reason for DG to have to stop placing those oils on their shelves. They are labeled as to what they are. If idiots buy them and mess up their cars, that's their own fault.
People who don't understand oil specs shouldn't be changing their own oil in the first place. *They* should be going to a mechanic shop or dealer to have their oil changed.
It is not a recognized and currently used spec! That is the exact problem! You can't call it a "API Service Category SF" if API does not consider that "category" a current service category. Worse, the bottle says "SF quality" which means they have likely not really gone for that service quality! It lacks both the donut and the starbust!
It is bad when the BITOG poster does not know what the API categories mean so what about the less-than-average (which is about half of the population) consumer thinking?
*****, dude I know what the specs are and what they mean. The reason we're arguing is more than likely political. I know those are old specs! If they aren't truly API certified then yah I would suggest removing them from the shelves. But if they are API certified, I don't care if the spec is out of date, as long as the spec is listed on the bottle, there is no deceit happening.
If the bottle clearly states its API spec, there should be no problem. It's the customers duty to know what their vehicle needs. If they don't know what kind of oil their car needs, it's their own fault if they buy improper oil for their vehicle.
As I have said before, I once told a manager of a gas station that he was selling oil that did NOT have any API certification, and he told me to leave.
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.
Originally Posted By: aquariuscsm
I hope Dollar General and the judge told NM to go jump off a cliff. Numbnut customers need to READ THE LABEL. READ people READ! There is absolutely no deceptive advertising whatsoever. Every grocery store here in town sells non detergent oil with that same exact disclaimer on the label.
whzat's the literacy rate in the US?
I hope Dollar General and the judge told NM to go jump off a cliff. Numbnut customers need to READ THE LABEL. READ people READ! There is absolutely no deceptive advertising whatsoever. Every grocery store here in town sells non detergent oil with that same exact disclaimer on the label.
whzat's the literacy rate in the US?
So if I wished to produce some API SA oil, can I go buy the specification so I know if it meets the requirements? If so, can I get it licensed so I can print on the bottle that it is API SA licensed?
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
...
It is not a recognized and currently used spec! That is the exact problem! You can't call it a "API Service Category SF" if API does not consider that "category" a current service category. Worse, the bottle says "SF quality" which means they have likely not really gone for that service quality! It lacks both the donut and the starbust!
So by that reasoning, all Dex/Merc fluid needs to be pulled off the shelf as well? There is no current Dex/Merc spec or licensing, it is the old spec, superceded by Dexron VI and Mercon V (or now LV). Most universal ATF can't exist either, since they are not approved, only recommended to meet a spec.
Redline, Schaffer's and some Amsoil should not be sold as well because they do not meet the current API spec.
...
It is not a recognized and currently used spec! That is the exact problem! You can't call it a "API Service Category SF" if API does not consider that "category" a current service category. Worse, the bottle says "SF quality" which means they have likely not really gone for that service quality! It lacks both the donut and the starbust!
So by that reasoning, all Dex/Merc fluid needs to be pulled off the shelf as well? There is no current Dex/Merc spec or licensing, it is the old spec, superceded by Dexron VI and Mercon V (or now LV). Most universal ATF can't exist either, since they are not approved, only recommended to meet a spec.
Redline, Schaffer's and some Amsoil should not be sold as well because they do not meet the current API spec.
Originally Posted By: FutureDoc
For protecting the consumer, you have to take into consideration that not all consumers are both literate and/or native speaker/readers. Just because someone in unable or incapable to reading fine print or labeling does not give a person or company the legal green-light to rip people off.
Technically, my mother (she can see but meets the definition of being legally blind) would not be able to read that back label. She could see the 10w30 but would be unable to read the disclaimer. No, you have to protect the consumer at the lowest "minimum" level possible... including stupidity at times.
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.
For protecting the consumer, you have to take into consideration that not all consumers are both literate and/or native speaker/readers. Just because someone in unable or incapable to reading fine print or labeling does not give a person or company the legal green-light to rip people off.
Technically, my mother (she can see but meets the definition of being legally blind) would not be able to read that back label. She could see the 10w30 but would be unable to read the disclaimer. No, you have to protect the consumer at the lowest "minimum" level possible... including stupidity at times.
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.
This is just a good reason never to shop at DG. I question why DG would sell oil only suitable for old pickups and lawnmowers, seems like bad customer service to me.
It does not rise to the level of fraud when what they are selling is clearly labeled.
It does not rise to the level of fraud when what they are selling is clearly labeled.
- Status