Fresh, Inc., is a cosmetics and skin care manufacturer. One of its product lines is Sugar Lip Treatment (Sugar), a lip balm. Sugar is a lip balm treatment that comes in various shades of color and comes in an oversized dispenser tube. Each tube of Sugar retails at stores and online at $22.50 to $25.00. Angela Ebener, a California resident that purchased tubes of Sugar over the four years preceding the trial, sued Fresh for deceptive advertising. Ebener asserted that she was led to believe there was more product than the packaging indicated because only 75 percent of the product was reasonably accessible. The remaining 25 percent was blocked by the tube’s screw mechanism. Furthermore, although the Sugar tube label stated there was 4.3 grams of product, a metallic weight at the base of the tube combined with packaging box itself made the whole package weigh approximately 29 grams. Ebener argued that the extra weight misled her to think there was more product than there actually was. The district court ruled against Ebener, citing that California’s Safe Harbor doctrine and federal preemption under the FDCA were fatal to her claims. Ebener appealed and the Ninth Circuit Court took the case and affirmed the district court decision. What is the Safe Harbor Doctrine and federal preemption under the FDCA according to the appellate court and how did they interact with California’s deceptive advertising laws to lead to the case’s conclusion? Do you think it is ethical for Fresh to label Sugar as having 4.3 grams of lip balm when only three-fourths of it is accessible?