The lawsuit centers on “303” tractor hydraulic fluid, a label that originated from an old John Deere specification for tractor transmission/hydraulic oil but is no longer an active OEM standard. According to the class allegations, certain products sold as Super S Super Trac 303, Super S 303, CAM2 ProMax 303, and CAM2 303 were marketed in ways that implied they met equipment manufacturers’ requirements, even though the formula allegedly did not satisfy modern performance needs for many tractors. Because tractor hydraulic/transmission fluids are critical for lubrication, hydraulics, wet brakes, and clutch performance, an out-of-spec fluid can potentially contribute to issues like excessive wear, poor shifting, noise or chatter, overheating, and component damage. The case was filed to address claims of false advertising and product performance—namely, that consumers paid for a “303”-type fluid expecting compatibility and protection, and some allegedly suffered equipment damage. Without admitting wrongdoing, Smitty’s Supply, Inc. and CAM2 International, LLC agreed to a $31.9 million settlement covering purchases from December 1, 2013 to the present, with a claim deadline of March 1, 2025; the structure includes payments per container size with up to $100 without proof of purchase and higher amounts for documented repairs. Its significance is less about a single brand and more about how commodity lubricants are marketed: the settlement underscores that labeling a fluid with legacy specs can be misleading if consumers reasonably interpret it as meeting current OEM standards, and it incentivizes clearer performance claims and documentation. Broader implications extend across the lubricant industry, where “meets/compatible with” statements are common and can trigger scrutiny under state consumer-protection and false-advertising laws, as well as oversight concepts tied to truth-in-labeling and substantiation of performance claims. Similar disputes have arisen around other “303” fluids and around engine oils, coolant, and additives where advertised specifications or approvals are contested, reflecting a recurring tension between marketing shorthand and technical compliance. In a market where manufacturers publish detailed fluid requirements and warranty language often depends on using properly specified products, cases like this can push retailers and blenders toward more precise labeling, clearer disclosure that “303” is not an active OEM approval, and stronger quality-control and testing records to back up claims.