It’s easy to confuse these things, but knowing the difference really matters.

Watkins contends that this creates a misleading impression for shoppers. Because McCormick’s container is opaque, customers cannot see the actual amount of pepper inside.

By contrast, Watkins sells pepper in clear jars, making the contents immediately visible. In practical terms, while both brands now offer comparable quantities, McCormick’s packaging appears larger and more substantial on store shelves.

Watkins argues that this visual advantage gives McCormick an unfair edge, influencing consumer perception and potentially violating consumer protection laws. The psychological impact is important. Research in behavioral economics and marketing psychology consistently shows that consumers rely heavily on visual heuristics — mental shortcuts that simplify decision-making.

A taller jar, a wider lid, or a more prominent label can create the impression of greater quantity or value, even if the net weight is clearly printed elsewhere. Shoppers often assume that the larger container equals more product, translating directly into perceived savings or better value.

When McCormick and Watkins containers are placed side by side, the difference in packaging design can subtly nudge a consumer toward McCormick, despite the actual volume being the same or smaller.

From a legal perspective, the dispute centers on the balance between transparency and marketing strategy. McCormick maintains that the net weight of its product is clearly printed on the label, arguing that this disclosure satisfies federal labeling requirements.

The company also contends that consumers are responsible for reviewing this information before making a purchase. Watkins and consumer advocates disagree, pointing to widespread evidence that most shoppers do not closely examine small print, particularly during routine grocery trips. Continue reading…