Karen Schulte v. Conopco, Inc., 997 F.3d 823

Plaintiff Karen Schulte bought six Dove "Advanced Care" antiperspirant sticks (marketed to women) from six retailers and alleges they were priced higher than comparable "Men + Care" sticks (marketed to men) by $0.40–$1.00 per stick.
Advanced Care and Men + Care differ in scent assortments, packaging/labels, and size (2.6 oz vs. 2.7 oz); ingredient lists are similar but not identical.
Schulte filed a putative class action under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), alleging a gender-based pricing "pink tax" violation; the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo and applied Iqbal/Twombly pleading standards and Missouri MMPA precedent about unfair practices and ascertainable loss.
The court concluded Schulte pleaded only retail-price differences and marketing differences, not that gender was the sole distinguishing characteristic, and affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the MMPA prohibits gender-based pricing of consumer products	Schulte: MMPA forbids deceptive/unfair practices including charging women more (a "pink tax")	Conopco: Pricing differences reflect product differences and consumer preferences, not MMPA violations	Court: Even if MMPA could reach gender pricing, Schulte failed to plausibly allege discrimination because she did not show gender was the only difference
Whether alleged retail-price gaps alone can state an MMPA claim	Schulte: Retail-price disparities between lines suffice to show unlawful practice	Conopco: Price gaps alone are insufficient without showing deception or that products are identical except for gender targeting	Court: Price differentials alone are inadequate; plaintiff must plausibly allege that all characteristics except purchaser gender are the same
Whether gender-targeted marketing equals unlawful, enforced price discrimination	Schulte: Targeted marketing that results in higher prices to women is discriminatory	Conopco: Marketing differences (scents, packaging) reflect demand/preference-based pricing, not coercive discrimination	Court: Marketing choice and consumer preference explain pricing; MMPA does not bar preference-based pricing absent deception or omission of material facts

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state plausible claim to relief)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Toben v. Bridgestone Retail Ops., LLC, 751 F.3d 888 (8th Cir. 2014) (elements required to state an MMPA claim)
Ports Petroleum Co. v. Nixon, 37 S.W.3d 237 (Mo. 2001) (MMPA’s terms are broad and expansive)
Conway v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 438 S.W.3d 410 (Mo. 2014) (MMPA suit need not be premised on direct contractual relationship)
Huch v. Charter Commc'ns, Inc., 290 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. 2009) (court determines whether fair dealing was violated)
Kiechle v. Drago, 694 S.W.2d 292 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985) (MMPA complaints may be dismissed when no evidence of fraud/deception exists)
Foremost Dairies, Inc. v. Thomason, 384 S.W.2d 651 (Mo. 1964) (different prices for similar products are not necessarily unfair)