3M Co., the tape manufacturer, has agreed to pay nearly $700,000 to settle a case brought by prosecutors in Fresno County, California, charging that its Scotch and Tartan brand tapes marketed as “for one-inch use” in fact measured only .94 inch. (McClatchy/Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Mar. 27). Reader Bob Dorigo Jones writes that news of the prosecution “likely created panic within all companies that make, sell or otherwise advertise 2 x 4 boards”. Presumably, though, it would not be especially controversial for Fresno County to enforce the state’s weights and measures laws against the seller of milk or flour that was 6 percent short by weight. Does it make a difference that most users of tape don’t really care much about precise widths, inasmuch as they will not run out of tape any faster if its dimensions run slightly narrower than one inch?
For more on the affirmative-litigation activities of California counties, see this PoL post of last week.
One Comment
Someone buying wider tapes (half-inch and up for most types) is looking for area coverage or added holding power from spreading the load across more of the package. In these applications, 6% short on the area is likely to be significant, but not nearly as significant as a shortage in a “gallon” of milk, since in real use everyone overlaps the tape without measuring precisely. There are three things I don’t know:
1. Are tape reels are subject to shrinkage in width? It sounds like if that’s the case, 3M was consistently under-compensating for it. I think that may have been an issue with older tape types based on paper, cloth, and cellophane, but I doubt the plastic film used as the base material in modern packaging tape shrinks at all other than slight and predictable changes with temperature.
2. Is there an industry standard that tapes are generally a little undersized? Others have cited “2×4’s”, which are far more undersized, in an industry standard well known to every carpenter, building contractor, architect, and civil engineer.
3. Was the package labeled with the actual width, in smaller print than the “for one inch use” marking? I can see an argument that such packaging is sufficiently honest, especially in conjunction with #2.