Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
Originally Posted By: meborder
I hope PQIA follows their own precedent and sues another company for selling properly marked, labeled, and positioned petroleum product to protect those of us who are unable or unwilling to read product labels.
PQIA has never sued anyone and has no involvement in the class actions suits against Dollar General. PQIA simple analyzes motor oils and reports its findings. Its piece on the Dollar General products was purely factual and advised consumers to read the front and back labels carefully.
Those law suits were filed by private individuals and are based on deceptive marketing practices of obsolete motor oils. The bottles are positioned alongside quality motor oils and the front labels display a racing flag implying high performance, when in fact the oils are not suitable for 99% of the cars on the road. The fine print warning on the back label is not considered a sufficient caveat by the plaintiffs, hence the suit. Most people don't read all the fine print on the products they buy and marketers know that. Warnings do not excuse intentional deception.
Tom NJ
I stand corrected.
I'll amend my statement accordingly:
I hope PQIA follows their previous opinion and supports another lawsuit which sews a company for selling properly marked, labeled, and positioned petroleum product to protect those of us who are unable or unwilling to read product labels.
How could one come to another conclusion? If using outdated oil is harmful to modern engines, under filling them by 66% is likely worse. How can you guarantee that one unable to understand that bottles marked "not for use in engines made after 1988" could be harmful is able to understand that 11oz is not a quart?
