Title: Label By Usable Volume — LessWrong | BestBlogs.dev
URL Source: https://www.bestblogs.dev/article/c674eb5c
Published Time: 2026-03-26 02:30:10
Markdown Content: Skip to main content Toggle navigation menu Toggle navigation menuArticlesPodcastsVideosTweetsSourcesNewsletters
⌘K
Change language Switch ThemeSign In
Narrow Mode
Label By Usable Volume — LessWrong
!Image 2: LessWrong LessWrong @jefftk
One Sentence Summary
The author argues for updating consumer labeling laws to reflect 'usable volume' rather than total volume, drawing parallels to pharmaceutical regulations to better align manufacturer incentives with consumer value.
Summary
This article explores the discrepancy between advertised product volume and actual usable volume, using a lawsuit against L'Oreal as a case study. The author proposes a policy shift: requiring manufacturers to label products based on the amount a consumer can reasonably extract. By comparing this to the pharmaceutical industry, where dosage accuracy is strictly regulated, the author suggests that such a change would incentivize more efficient packaging and transparent pricing, ultimately aligning economic incentives with consumer utility.
Main Points
* 1. Advertised volume often misrepresents the actual usable product.Current legal standards define volume by the total amount in the container, not what can be extracted, leading to situations where consumers pay for product they cannot access. * 2. Aligning incentives through 'usable volume' labeling.Mandating labels based on extractable volume would force manufacturers to design more efficient packaging or adjust pricing, directly benefiting the consumer. * 3. Precedent exists in the pharmaceutical industry.Medicine already requires measuring and accounting for losses to ensure accurate dosage, proving that regulating 'usable' amounts is feasible and necessary in critical sectors.
Metadata
AI Score
80
Website lesswrong.com
Published At Today
Length 274 words (about 2 min)
Sign in to use highlight and note-taking features for a better reading experience. Sign in now
I always look at unit prices: how much do I get for my dollar? But that assumes I can use all of it. The manufacturer gets "12oz" whether I'll be able to get the full 12oz or only 6oz. L'Oreal was selling lotions where:
> these Liquid Cosmetic Product containers only dispense between as little as 43 percent to 81 percent of the container's advertised contents. — Critcher et al. v. L'Oreal
Even though these containers would often dispense less than half of the advertised volume, L'Oreal won the case: the law says the amount listed on the container means the amount in the container, not the amount you'll be able to get out of the container. But it doesn't have to be that way. What should our laws say?
We should update our labeling laws to require manufacturers to use the amount a consumer could reasonably extract. If you have a wide mouth transparent container with smooth insides, a rubber scraper can get it all. If you have a narrow mouth squeeze bottle, then only count what squeezes out. Maybe manufacturers would shift to more efficient packaging, or maybe consumers would accept higher unit cost for more convenience. The important thing is aligning incentives: pay for what you can use.
There is actually one area where we do this already: medicine. Because it seriously matters that when the doctor prescribes 10ml you receive 10ml, they are required to measure losses and adjust for them. If we could only do this in one part of the economy I agree medication is good choice, but why don't we do this everywhere?
_Comment via: facebook, mastodon, bluesky_
!Image 3: LessWrong LessWrong @jefftk
One Sentence Summary
The author argues for updating consumer labeling laws to reflect 'usable volume' rather than total volume, drawing parallels to pharmaceutical regulations to better align manufacturer incentives with consumer value.
Summary
This article explores the discrepancy between advertised product volume and actual usable volume, using a lawsuit against L'Oreal as a case study. The author proposes a policy shift: requiring manufacturers to label products based on the amount a consumer can reasonably extract. By comparing this to the pharmaceutical industry, where dosage accuracy is strictly regulated, the author suggests that such a change would incentivize more efficient packaging and transparent pricing, ultimately aligning economic incentives with consumer utility.
Main Points
* 1. Advertised volume often misrepresents the actual usable product.
Current legal standards define volume by the total amount in the container, not what can be extracted, leading to situations where consumers pay for product they cannot access.
* 2. Aligning incentives through 'usable volume' labeling.
Mandating labels based on extractable volume would force manufacturers to design more efficient packaging or adjust pricing, directly benefiting the consumer.
* 3. Precedent exists in the pharmaceutical industry.
Medicine already requires measuring and accounting for losses to ensure accurate dosage, proving that regulating 'usable' amounts is feasible and necessary in critical sectors.
Key Quotes
* The law says the amount listed on the container means the amount in the container, not the amount you'll be able to get out of the container. * The important thing is aligning incentives: pay for what you can use. * If we could only do this in one part of the economy I agree medication is good choice, but why don't we do this everywhere?
AI Score
80
Website lesswrong.com
Published At Today
Length 274 words (about 2 min)
Tags
Rationality
Consumer Protection
Policy
Incentives
LessWrong
Related Articles
* Sycophancy Towards Researchers Drives Performative Misalignment — LessWrong is a dominant factor in Llama-3.1 70B, challenging the assumption that such behavior is primarily driven by spontaneous, strategic scheming.") * Letting Claude do Autonomous Research to Improve SAEs — LessWrong architectures, achieving near-perfect scores on a synthetic benchmark by rediscovering and adapting classical dictionary learning techniques.") * Latent Introspection (and other open-source introspection papers) * How well do models follow their constitutions? — LessWrong * Claude Code， Claude Cowork and Codex #5 — LessWrong HomeArticlesPodcastsVideosTweets