Deceptive by Design: How Cosmetic Packaging Tricks Consumers Into into Paying for “Air”
When consumers buy cosmetics, they’re paying not just for formulation, scent, or colour—but also for appearance. And cosmetics packaging has become one of the most subtle, powerful tools for projecting value. The catch? Often the packaging gives the impression of more product than you're actually getting. The result: you pay more for empty space. It’s known in legal/marketing circles as slack-fill or non-functional empty space, and it’s becoming a growing concern for consumer rights, regulatory bodies, and conscientious shoppers alike.
What Is Slack-Fill & Non-Functional Empty Space?
Slack-fill refers to the difference between the capacity of a package and the actual amount of product inside, where the empty space does not serve a functional purpose. Functional slack-fill might be needed for protection, product settling, or necessary machinery (like a pump). Non-functional slack-fill is the part that exists only to make the product look bigger, either by using packaging that’s taller, wider, deeper, or shaped in a way that isn’t essential.
In cosmetics, non-functional slack-fill can show up as:
Oversized tubes, jars, or bottles that are partially empty.
Thick or heavy outer components (e.g. thick glass bases, thick plastic walls) that increase the overall size without increasing content.
Packaging that hides how much product is inside (opaque containers, partial views, etc.).
False bottoms, inner bags or linings that trap product or make content hard to access.
Why Brands & Marketers Use This
Perceived Value – Larger, heavier, or “premium-looking” packaging can suggest a higher quality or more generous amount even if the product inside is the same size as popular alternatives.
Shelf Presence & Visual Appeal – In stores (or online via images), packaging is one of the first impressions. Bulky, luxe packaging attracts the eye.
Psychological Fallacies – Many consumers assume bigger package = more product. That assumption can be exploited without overt lying.
Branding & Luxury Signification – Heavy glass bases, large lids, frosted or ornate containers can signal “prestige,” even when the functional capacity is modest.
Legal & Regulatory Landscape
There is increasing legal and regulatory scrutiny over deceptive packaging. Some key points:
Brands have faced class action lawsuits for misrepresenting how full their packages are—or for using large packages that mislead consumers about how much product they are really getting.
In the U.S., there are laws against false advertising and unfair competition; some state laws specifically refer to misrepresentations caused by packaging.
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) regulates cosmetics labeling, but slack-fill in cosmetics has not always been tightly regulated (unlike food). A landmark case involved L’Oréal in Critcher v. L'Oréal USA Inc. where consumers alleged that pump bottles made a product seem like it held more than was accessible. - Covington & Burling
More recently, e.l.f. Cosmetics has been sued over slack-fill claims: it’s Holy Hydration! Gentle Peeling Exfoliant and Glossy Lip Stain are alleged to be sold in oversized containers, with packaging roughly half empty. - Class Action
Real Brand Examples
Here are several cases where well-known brands have come under criticism or legal challenge for packaging practices that may mislead consumers:
Brand: e.l.f. Cosmetics
Product: Holy Hydration! Gentle Peeling Exfoliant & Glossy Lip Stain
Specific Issue(s): The case alleges that the containers are half-empty, that the outer packaging is opaque or hides the true fill, and that shoppers are misled into thinking they’re getting more product. The complaint says the slack-fill is non-functional, i.e. it’s not needed for safety, shipping, or machinery.
Outcome / Status: Lawsuit filed in California; still under litigation (as of mid-2025).
Brand: L’Oréal USA
Product: Various liquid cosmetics in pump dispensers (in Critcher v. L’Oréal)
Specific Issue(s): Plaintiffs claimed “substantial portion of product (up to ~50%) inaccessible.” They said the packaging misled by making it seem the container was fuller than it was. However, in that case, the court dismissed some of the claims on preemption grounds—that is, because federal law (FDCA) may preclude certain state-law consumer claims when it comes to labelling.
Outcome / Status: Some claims dismissed; but the case highlights how contentious and legally risky packaging can be.
Brand: Sunday Riley
Product: Good Genes Mini (among others)
Specific Issue(s): The packaging was criticised because tough, thick glass bases and frozen glass exteriors make the bottle appear larger than the usable content suggests; sometimes an inner dispenser or bag hides how much product you can actually use.
Outcome / Status: Mostly public criticism; regulatory/legal follow-ups have been less visible. But consumer trust and social media exposure have been impacted.
Brand: Innisfree
Product: “Hello, I'm Paper Bottle” (Green Tea Seed Serum)
Specific Issue(s): The bottle has a paper shell with plastic inner container; the branding “paper bottle” led consumers to believe the whole bottle was made of paper, whereas in practice there's a plastic liner. This misled environmentally conscious buyers.
Outcome / Status: After complaints, the brand acknowledged that the naming could mislead, apologised, and clarified how the packaging worked.
How Consumers are Misled
Some of the more common “tricks” in packaging design and marketing include:
Opaque outer packaging that conceals true product dimensions.
Shadow boxes, false bottoms, or inner chambers that make packages look fuller.
Heavy, thick materials (glass, thick plastic) that add bulk and weight without increasing product volume.
Exaggerated shapes: long tubes where only part of the tube holds product.
Misleading product images or visual cues (e.g. windows, cut-outs) that make content look more substantial.
Ethical & Business Consequences
Reputation risk: once consumers feel misled, word spreads quickly (especially in the beauty community). Trust is hard to win back.
Regulatory/legal exposure: class actions, consumer protection lawsuits. Fines or orders to change packaging can be costly.
Consumer backlash & eco-conscious awareness: with rising concern for sustainability, packaging waste and misleading “look” is becoming more scrutinised.
What Brands Can Do Better
To avoid accusations of deception and to build genuine trust, brands should consider:
Clear labeling: prominently display net weight / volume, and ensure it’s easy to see or gauge.
Honest packaging design: avoid unnecessary empty space; make product visible when possible; avoid exaggerated shapes that mislead.
Transparency in marketing: when using statements about “full size,” “premium packaging,” environmental benefit, etc., make sure those claims are accurate and qualified.
Regulatory review: ensure packaging meets local consumer protection laws. For example, check whether slack-fill is regulated or considered in labelling laws in markets the brand sells in.
What Consumers Can Do
Consumers are not powerless. Here are ways to negotiate the maze:
Always check the net weight / volume indicated on the packaging. Don’t rely on package size.
Be cautious of tall/heavy-looking packaging, these can be optical illusions.
Read reviews or unboxing content, other users often reveal how much product is in the container.
Prefer brands that offer refills, transparent packaging, or minimalist design that makes the product inside visible.
Conclusion
Cosmetic packaging isn’t neutral, it’s a communication tool. And like any communication, it can mislead. Slack-fill and non-functional empty space are deceptive marketing strategies that have flown under the radar but are now getting legal, regulatory, and consumer scrutiny. For brands, the risk is financial and reputational. For consumers, the risk is overpaying for what looks like more than they get. In an era of increasing demand for transparency and sustainability, packaging that misleads is becoming less acceptable.
