This case involves a defendant nutritional supplement manufacturer that produced a popular line of pre-workout products that was accused of intentionally packaging its products in large, opaque containers that contain approximately 30% empty space, otherwise known as “slack fill.” Plaintiffs purchased the products, expecting to receive a full container, however due to the food packaging practices employed by the manufacturer customers received substantially less product than expected. It was alleged that the defendant intentionally incorporated non-functional slack-fill in its packaging of the products in order to mislead consumers.
Question(s) For Expert Witness
1. Please briefly describe your familiarity with packaging and manufacturing, including measures taken to prevent slack fill.
2. Can you review the manufacturing and packaging processes used in this case and apply the slack fill exceptions to opine on which were met / not met?
Expert Witness Response E-078070
I have engineered the filling and container sizing several granular products. Also, considerations in powder and granular filling was a topic in a packaging machinery course I used to teach for a major packaging industry trade association. I have used the supplements in question here and am familiar with its characteristic regarding package filling.
About the author
Joseph O'Neill
Joe has extensive experience in online journalism and technical writing across a range of legal topics, including personal injury, meidcal malpractice, mass torts, consumer litigation, commercial litigation, and more. Joe spent close to six years working at Expert Institute, finishing up his role here as Director of Marketing. He has considerable knowledge across an array of legal topics pertaining to expert witnesses. Currently, Joe servces as Owner and Demand Generation Consultant at LightSail Consulting.
