In Cottrell v. Alcon Laboratories, No. 16-2015 (3d Cir. Oct. 18, 2017), plaintiffs alleged defendants, manufacturers and distributors of prescription eyedrops, sold the medication in bottles that dispensed eyedrops that were too large for effective use. The excess medication would escape the eye or be absorbed through the tear duct, resulting in waste or potential side effects. Plaintiffs alleged at least half of the medication dispensed from defendants’ products went to waste or put the patient at risk for side effects. Plaintiffs alleged this resulted in an economic injury. The district court disagreed, and dismissed the lawsuits for lack of injury in fact. The Third Circuit reversed. It found plaintiffs alleged economic interests – the money they spent on wasted medication – that were protected by state consumer statutes. The Third Circuit acknowledged the Seventh Circuit had held otherwise in Eike v. Allergan, 850 F.3d 315 (7th Cir. 2017); the Seventh Circuit concluded plaintiffs failed to allege a legally protected interest and lacked standing. The Third Circuit disagreed, noting consumer protection statutes not only prohibit fraudulent and deceptive practices, but also unfair practices. Packaging product in a manner that requires it to be wasted was arguably unfair. The injury was both concrete and particularized, thereby satisfying the Spokeo requirements. One judge dissented, concluding the alleged economic injury was overly speculative. To the dissent, the assertion the defendants could have manufactured a more efficient product that could have resulted in a lower price did not give rise to a claim.