At first glance, two containers of black pepper may look almost identical. They can have a similar height, shape, and shelf presence, leaving shoppers with the impression that they contain roughly the same amount of product.
But a difference hidden inside the packaging once became the center of a long-running federal court battle between two major spice companies.
In 2015, Watkins Incorporated sued McCormick & Company, alleging that McCormick had reduced the amount of ground black pepper inside some of its familiar metal tins while continuing to use containers that were essentially the same size.
The legal dispute centered on a packaging practice commonly called “slack-fill.”
Slack-fill is the empty space between the actual capacity of a container and the amount of product inside it. Empty space is not automatically improper—many products need it for legitimate reasons such as protection, settling, machinery requirements, or packaging functionality.
Watkins, however, alleged that the empty space in McCormick’s pepper tins was unnecessary and could mislead consumers about how much pepper they were buying. Justia Law
What Changed Inside the Tins?
According to Watkins’ 2015 complaint, McCormick had historically sold ground black pepper in several recognizable tin sizes.
The small container had held 2 ounces, the medium one 4 ounces, and the large one 8 ounces.
Watkins alleged that McCormick later reduced those amounts by approximately 25 percent:
- 2 ounces became 1.5 ounces
- 4 ounces became 3 ounces
- 8 ounces became 6 ounces
The dimensions of the familiar metal containers, according to the lawsuit, remained largely unchanged. Because the tins were opaque, shoppers could not simply look through the packaging to see how much pepper was inside. PR Newswire
That difference became particularly noticeable when McCormick products were placed beside competing Watkins pepper containers.
Watkins argued that its containers were more closely sized to the amount of pepper they contained. As a result, a six-ounce Watkins package could appear smaller next to a similarly filled McCormick tin.
The company claimed this created a visual impression that McCormick offered more product, even when both packages contained similar quantities.
But the Weight Was Printed on the Label
The dispute was not as simple as whether McCormick disclosed the quantity.
The net weight was printed on the packages.
That meant shoppers who carefully compared the labels could see that the amount of pepper had changed.
The larger question was whether consumers rely only on printed weight—or whether the physical size and appearance of a familiar package can also influence purchasing decisions.
Watkins argued that shoppers had become accustomed to McCormick’s traditional tins after seeing them for many years and could reasonably associate a certain container size with a certain amount of pepper.
McCormick disputed the allegations that its packaging unlawfully misled consumers.
The disagreement eventually became a much larger legal fight involving claims under the federal Lanham Act and state laws concerning advertising and business practices. Justia Law
The Case Lasted for Years
What might sound like a simple argument about pepper containers turned into litigation lasting roughly eight years.
At one point, McCormick asked the court to dispose of the case before trial, arguing that Watkins could not adequately prove that its alleged lost sales were caused by McCormick’s packaging.
In December 2021, the federal court denied McCormick’s request for summary judgment, allowing important portions of Watkins’ case to continue toward trial. Justia Law
But reaching trial did not mean Watkins ultimately won.
In August 2023, a federal jury sided with McCormick, rejecting Watkins’ false-advertising case after years of litigation. Watkins publicly expressed disappointment with the result. Star Tribune
That final chapter is important because older versions of the story online often describe the lawsuit as though it were still unresolved.
Why the Story Still Matters to Shoppers
The case highlights something consumers encounter far beyond the spice aisle.
Packaging can strongly influence how we perceive value.
A tall bottle may look like it contains more than a short, wide one.
A familiar box may remain the same size even after the quantity inside changes.
And two products that appear dramatically different in size can sometimes contain nearly the same amount.
That is why the net weight, unit price, and quantity information printed on packaging can be more useful than judging value by appearance alone.
The pepper dispute also illustrates why companies pay close attention to packaging changes. A container is not simply something that holds a product—it is part of how shoppers recognize, compare, and remember a brand.
So if you were shown the two pepper tins and asked to “identify the difference,” the most important difference might not have been visible from the outside at all.
One package could look almost unchanged while containing significantly less pepper than an earlier version.
The lesson for shoppers is simple: when packages look similar, check the numbers. Sometimes the biggest difference is hiding inside the container.