In today’s retail environment, consumers make buying decisions lightning fast. Grocery aisles are designed to funnel attention toward visual cues — color, shape, brand familiarity, and package size — rather than detailed ingredient lists or net weights. Shoppers rarely have time to analyze labels; rather, they rely on subconscious shortcuts that equate larger packaging with more product and better value. This dynamic means that small differences in packaging can have outsized influence on consumer behavior, shaping choices without explicit awareness. Within this context, a legal dispute in the spice industry over packaging and contents offers a vivid example of how subtle visual cues can trigger both legal and ethical challenges in competitive markets.

The legal conflict centers on a lawsuit brought by Watkins Incorporated, a small Minnesota spice and extract producer, against McCormick & Company, the dominant player in the U.S. spice market. Watkins filed its complaint in 2015, alleging that McCormick had engaged in deceptive trade practices by reducing the quantity of black pepper in its iconic spice tins without proportionately shrinking the container size or lowering the price. Watkins argued that McCormick’s actions — selling containers that appeared unchanged on store shelves but contained about 25 percent less product — misled consumers and disadvantaged fair competition. The packaging looked familiar and occupied the same visual space, causing shoppers to assume they were getting the same amount they always had, when in fact they were not.

At the heart of Watkins’ argument is the concept of nonfunctional slack‑fill — space in a package that serves no purpose other than to give the visual impression of greater quantity. Under federal regulations, nonfunctional slack‑fill can be regarded as misleading if it isn’t necessary to protect the product or enable proper packaging. By keeping the tins the same size while reducing the actual pepper inside, Watkins contended McCormick exploited consumers’ ingrained belief that container size signals quantity, creating an illusion of value where none existed. The complaint alleged this tactic caused injury to Watkins by making McCormick’s pepper appear more attractive on the shelf, thereby siphoning sales away from smaller competitors whose packaging was transparent about product volume.

McCormick defended its practices by pointing to regulatory compliance: the company updated the net weight information on labels, changed universal product codes (UPCs), and informed retailers of the changes. Company representatives argued that these disclosures met legal obligations and that consumers could see the precise amount of product printed on the label if they chose to read it. From McCormick’s perspective, clear net weight statements satisfied labeling requirements, and any packaging changes were transparently documented in accordance with industry norms. Critics of Watkins’ position, however, noted that this defense overlooks how real shoppers behave in retail settings: most glance at packaging, not fine print, relying on visual cues instead — especially for everyday commodities like spices.

The dispute escalated beyond Watkins’ competitor suit when consumer class actions were also filed, accusing McCormick of misleading buyers by hiding product reductions behind unchanged packaging. These suits were consolidated in federal court, where plaintiffs alleged they paid the same price for less product because packaging did not visibly reflect the reduced contents. A preliminary class settlement of about $2.5 million was reached in 2020 for consumers who purchased underfilled pepper tins and grinders, although the broader litigation continued with different claims from Watkins. Courts have grappled with whether the packaging constituted misleading presentation under consumer protection laws and whether the practices unfairly influenced purchasing decisions.

A federal jury ultimately sided with McCormick in the Minnesota case, rejecting Watkins’ challenge. The verdict capped a legal battle spanning nearly a decade, with Watkins’ leaders expressing disappointment that a smaller competitor could not hold the larger company accountable despite the packaging change. They characterized the practice — sometimes described as “shrinkflation,” where quantity is reduced without corresponding price drops — as typical industry behavior but one that nonetheless misled consumers and retailers. McCormick’s reduction of pepper in its tins after the lawsuit was filed was cited by Watkins’ leadership as implicit acknowledgment of the underlying issue, even if the legal outcome did not go in their favor.

The broader implications of the McCormick–Watkins dispute extend beyond these two companies. It has fueled debate around shrinkflation — the practice of shrinking product volume while keeping price and package size constant — and the ethics of packaging design that can inadvertently mislead shoppers. Consumer trust can be fragile; when brands fail to align packaging with content in ways that feel transparent and fair, backlash, legal challenges, and reputational costs often follow. In an age where shoppers are increasingly tuned into strategies that may obscure true value, businesses are under pressure to balance regulatory compliance with ethical transparency. How courts and regulators interpret such disputes may influence how companies design packaging, disclose changes, and communicate with consumers — not just in spices but across categories where visual perception often dictates purchasing decisions.