Apple’s Own Chemical Policies Sink Its Bid to Toss PFAS Watch Band Suit

/in ,

A federal court has refused to toss a proposed class action accusing Apple of selling smartwatch bands laced with a PFAS known as PFHxA, finding that Apple’s own internal restrictions on PFHxA gave the plaintiffs enough to show the watchbands posed a plausible health risk.

The Northern District of California’s March 16, 2026, order found that the plaintiffs had adequately established standing and stated viable claims on nearly every count, citing both independent lab results and Apple’s internal supplier policies.  According to the plaintiffs, Apple previously designated PFHxA as “reportable” at 25 parts per billion (ppb) and elevated the designation to “restricted” in 2023, prohibiting suppliers from exceeding that threshold.

Combined with the plaintiffs’ test results showing PFHxA concentrations exceeding 1,000 ppb, the court found sufficient basis for standing.  Given that Apple and the European Union have designated 25 ppb PFHxA as “significant enough to raise concerns warranting some type of disclosure or prohibition,” the plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that the bands “have risky levels of PFHxA,” the court held.

Neither the lab results nor the internal Apple policies were included in the original complaint; both were added by amendment.  The study underlying the original suit presented anonymized results and therefore “does not quite say” that the contested bands contain PFAS, the court noted, which was a central focus of Apple’s initial motion to dismiss.

Notably, the court did not address Apple’s arguments in its subsequent motion that the plaintiffs’ test results came from a single tested product and that the plaintiffs failed to allege that the specific products they purchased contained PFHxA—an omission that other courts have found fatal in similar suits.

Most Claims Clear the Pleading Bar

Apple’s supplier classifications proved central to the plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment/omission claim, which the court found plausible given Apple’s internal recognition of PFHxA’s risks.  The plaintiffs’ negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and California Unfair Competition Law claims also survived.  On negligent misrepresentation, the court rejected Apple’s economic loss rule argument, reasoning that the alleged health risks placed the claims outside the rule’s reach.

The court similarly rejected Apple’s argument that the suit’s nationwide common law causes of action should be dismissed because the plaintiffs did not plead which state laws govern them.  That analysis is inappropriate for the pleadings stage, and “Apple does not identify which other state law claims might apply or why they would apply over California law,” the opinion states.

Two claims did not survive.  Despite making a variety of health and wellness representations about the watchbands, Apple secured dismissal of the suit’s fraudulent misrepresentations claim because the plaintiffs did not identify the specific claims they relied upon.  The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ implied warranty of merchantability claims, which were essentially conceded.

The case is Cavalier v. Apple, Inc., No. 25-cv-713 (N.D. Cal.), filed 1/21/2025.

Eggland “Free to Roam” Claim Plausibly Misleading, Court Rules

/in

A proposed class action challenging animal welfare claims on Eggland’s Best cage-free eggs can continue, the Northern District of Illinois ruled on February 27, 2026.

The lawsuit asserts violations of state consumer protection and false advertising laws—the same statutes and “reasonable consumer” standard at the heart of most green marketing litigation—as well as nationwide unjust enrichment claims.

At issue is the statement “free to roam in a pleasant, natural environment” inside cartons of Eggland cage-free eggs, which are sold at a premium.  The plaintiffs allege that this representation is misleading because Eggland facilities are overcrowded and hens suffer neglect.

Eggland moved to dismiss, arguing that the eggs are correctly labeled as cage free—a designation that does not imply “free range” or “pasture raised.”  The company also pointed to certain state statutes defining cage-free environments as ones where hens are “free to roam” and can “exhibit natural behavior.”

The court disagreed, finding that Eggland’s packaging could suggest conditions exceed those of ordinary cage-free eggs.  A reasonable consumer, the court concluded, would read “free to roam” in a “natural” and “pleasant” environment alongside the cage-free claim to imply some outdoor access.  Because Eggland itself acknowledges that cage-free can include outdoor access, that term “does nothing to correct this additional representation.”

The court was unpersuaded that plaintiffs suffered no injury simply because they received cage-free eggs: “Plaintiffs paid a premium not just for cage free eggs, but also for eggs that came from hens that were free to roam in a natural, pleasant environment—something that meets more than the bare minimum requirements of a cage free egg.”

However, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, finding future injury hypothetical.  “Plaintiffs’ allegations amount to an admission that, based on their knowledge of Eggland’s alleged deception, they will avoid this deception by not purchasing the product,” the opinion states.

The court has since set a March 30 deadline for initial discovery disclosures and a January 29, 2027, deadline for all fact discovery.

The case is Janecyk v. Eggland’s Best, Inc., No. 24-cv-6222 (N.D. Ill.).

Court Applies FTC Green Guides in Igloo Marketing Lawsuit

/in , ,

A proposed class action challenging recycled content, biodegradability, and “Made in USA” claims on Igloo-brand cooler products can proceed, the Eastern District of New York ruled on February 2, 2026.

The case concerns unqualified recycled content and biodegradability claims on the front labels of various Igloo products.  According to the court, these include “Made From Biodegradable Materials” and “Made With Post Consumer Recycled Plastic Material,” which is often accompanied by the chasing arrows recycling symbol.  Igloo also advertises certain products with unqualified “Made in USA” representations.  The plaintiffs, a New York consumer and a Texas consumer, allege that these claims are deceptive and that they would not have purchased the products at the stated price had they known the products lacked these qualities.

The court’s analysis centered on the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Green Guides, which provide guidance on environmental marketing claims.  Although the guidance does not create independent causes of action, the court emphasized that alleged noncompliance can support deception claims because the Green Guides “illustrate how unqualified representations of a product’s qualities may plausibly deceive and mislead a reasonable consumer.”

With respect to Igloo’s unqualified biodegradability claims, the court observed that the Green Guides caution against such claims for products disposed of in landfills, where conditions do not allow for prompt degradation.  Combined with studies cited by the plaintiffs, this guidance made the plaintiffs’ deception theory plausible at the pleading stage.

Similarly, the court found the company’s recycling content claims plausibly deceptive because they did not disclose that the products were not entirely made of recycled content—despite the Green Guides’ instruction that marketers qualify claims for products containing both recycled and non-recycled content.

The court also held that, at this stage, the plaintiffs had standing to challenge representations made about products they did not purchase.  It noted, however, that Igloo may renew its standing arguments at class certification.

“Made in USA” and Other Claims

The plaintiffs’ “Made in USA” claims also survived dismissal, despite falling outside the scope of the Green Guides.  The court held that the allegations—that only a “minimal amount” of certain materials used by Igloo are produced domestically—were enough at the pleading stage, even without concrete proof that the contested products contain foreign materials.

“Plaintiffs have alleged that the relevant products contain ‘materials’ and ‘full components’ sourced and imported from other countries,” the court wrote.  “This is sufficient to allege that the Made in USA Representations were materially misleading”

Two claims did not survive. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ breach of express warranty claim for failure to provide pre-suit notice, and dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as duplicative of the statutory and common law claims.

The court repeatedly declined to rule or provide commentary on the merits.  Quoting caselaw, the court emphasized that “‘[a] federal trial judge, with a background and experience unlike that of most consumers, is hardly in a position to declare’ that reasonable consumers would not be misled.”

The case is Lieber v. Igloo Products Corp., No. 25-cv-488 (E.D.N.Y.), filed January 28, 2025.

P&G Wins Dismissal of Dental Floss PFAS Lawsuit

/in ,

A federal court has dismissed a proposed class action alleging that Procter & Gamble misled consumers about the health and environmental qualities of its dental floss due to the alleged presence of PFAS, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish standing.

The suit relied on test results allegedly showing that Oral-B Glide products contain 302,400 ppm of organic fluorine.  The suit also cited results from a separate laboratory that allegedly detected specific PFAS—including four not disclosed by the company, which publicly acknowledges that some Oral-B products contain the chemical PTFE.

In an order issued January 9, 2026, the Southern District of New York concluded that significant gaps in the testing allegations prevented the plaintiff from establishing standing under a price-premium theory of injury.

“Plaintiff does not clarify, among other things, whether the samples tested were taken from products Plaintiff actually purchased; when the samples were collected; how many samples were collected and tested for each product line; or whether all tested samples yielded positive results for PFAS,” the opinion reads.

These deficiencies, as well as insufficient information about whether the test samples were acquired at the same time or within geographic proximity to the purchased products, would also doom arguments that the entire product line was contaminated, the court added.

The plaintiff’s benefit-of-bargain theory fared no better.  The court found no concrete and particularized injury, citing the vague test results, the lack of alleged physical harm, and the plaintiff’s failure to identify a less expensive, PFAS-free dental floss product necessary to support the notion of a premium.

The decision aligns with a growing body of case law dismissing cases challenging marketing claims based on the alleged presence of PFAS for lack of standing, including a recent dismissal involving similar allegations against Coca-Cola, a decision the court cited repeatedly.

The case is Dalewitz v. The Procter & Gamble Co., No. 22-cv-7323 (S.D.N.Y.).  The plaintiff has until February 10, 2026, to file an amended complaint.

Challenge to Mondelēz Sustainability Claims Advances With Narrowed Scope

/in

A Illinois judge has allowed a putative class action challenging sustainability claims on Mondelēz International, Inc. products to proceed, while dismissing claims involving unpurchased products and requests for injunctive relief.

The case concerns a variety of sustainability-related representations on Mondelēz products, including “100% Sustainably Sourced Cocoa” claims on Oreo-brand cookies.  The plaintiff, a California consumer, alleges that these representations are misleading because cocoa supply chains involve child and forced labor and environmentally destructive practices.

In an order issued December 18, 2025, the court found the plaintiff’s theory of deception plausible.  While agreeing with Mondelēz that the plaintiff “cannot rely solely on sector-wide allegations,” the court concluded that she pleaded “sufficient Mondelēz-specific allegations to survive a motion to dismiss,” including references to an investigative exposé and prior litigation detailing labor abuses.

Mondelēz also argued that its use of the term “sustainable” was nonactionable puffery tied to its Cocoa Life program, which has sustainable aspirations.  But when read together with the front-label “100%” promise and back-panel language about “protect[ing] people & planet,” the court held that a reasonable consumer might believe that Oreo’s sourcing practices are “100% sustainable.”

The court did, however, narrow the scope of the case.  It rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to represent all purchasers of Mondelēz products bearing sustainability claims, limiting the action to the Oreo and Toblerone products she personally purchased.  Acknowledging a split among courts on this issue, the court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to pursue claims involving unpurchased products at this stage of the litigation.

For similar reasons, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief, concluding that any future injury was “paradigmatically speculative.”

The court also pared back the Toblerone claims, holding that the Cocoa Life seal in isolation could not be misleading.  Because the Toblerone bars did not include accompanying sustainability text, “it necessary narrows” the plaintiff’s claims, the court held.

Consolidation Denied

Mondelēz separately moved to consolidate the case with another pending challenge to its “100% Sustainably Sourced Cocoa” representation and Cocoa Life seal.  The court denied the motion, finding that consolidation would prejudice the other plaintiff.

The second challenge focuses on Mondelēz’s admitted practice of mixing cocoa beans from Cocoa Life-registered farms with beans from unregistered farms.  That plaintiff alleges that Mondelēz’s “100%” representation is misleading because the company uses a “mass balance” accounting approach and fails to disclose the resulting lack of traceability and compositional uncertainty.

As the court summarized, “one plaintiff disputes Cocoa Life’s sustainability, and the other objects to there not being enough Cocoa Life cocoa in the final product.”

Although Mondelēz argued that the differing theories were relevant to class certification rather than consolidation, the court found the distinction unpersuasive.  “Certification remains a question for another day,” the court explained, “but for now, it seems clear that all parties believe it untenable to pursue two theories of deception in one class action.”  The court noted that interim class counsel would therefore be “likely, if not certain,” to abandon one of the theories.

The motion observes that counsel “previously abandoned a different consolidated plaintiff’s derivative claims,” and that the two theories here “seemingly conflict” due to the second plaintiff’s “indifference with ‘the integrity of the Cocoa Life program.’”

The cases are Waggener Van Meter v. Mondelēz International, Inc., No. 24-cv-7368 (N.D. Ill.), and Pearson v. Mondelēz International, Inc., No. 25-cv-10819 (N.D. Ill.).

Conopco Can’t Shake “X% Naturally Derived” Mislabeling Suit

/in

A proposed class action challenging “X% Naturally Derived” label claims on Conopco’s “Love Beauty & Planet,” “Dove Men + Care,” and “babyDove” brand shampoos, conditioners, and other bath products can move forward, the California Northern District Court ruled on November 26, 2025.

The suit alleges that the provided percentages, which vary by product, mislead customers because they encompass synthetic industrial chemicals.  According to the plaintiffs, the percentages are calculated using a complex, proprietary, and arbitrary formula developed by the British Standards Institute (BSI) known as ISO 16128, which is not intended for marketing purposes.

In its order, the court concluded that consumers could plausibly read “naturally derived” to mean “non-synthetic.”  Although Conopco pointed to clarifying information on the products’ back labels, the court ruled that it was not necessary to consider the back labels because the statement on the front was plausibly unambiguous.  If consumers understand naturally derived as non-synthetic, “the back-label definition is essentially ‘fine print’ that undercuts the statements on the front labels,” the order states.

The court also held that the plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficiently detailed to survive dismissal, despite their reliance on allegations based on information and belief.

Dismissed Claims

Other claims were dismissed without prejudice, including the plaintiffs’ argument that Conopco’s omission of a definition of naturally derived on the front label could serve as a separate basis for its false advertising claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

The court held that this omission theory was insufficiently pled because it was not set forth in the complaint.  Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to explain why the alleged omission “‘relates to an unreasonable safety hazard’ or is ‘material’ and ‘central to the product’s function,’” the order states.

The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims.  Under California’s economic loss rule, those torts require that the plaintiffs allege losses in addition to economic loss, and they have not done so, the court held.

The case is Kent v. Conopco, Inc., No. 25-cv-03660 (N.D. Cal.), filed Apr. 25, 2025.  Plaintiffs have until January 7, 2026, to file an amended complaint.

BBB Finds Bamboo Tissue Maker’s Environmental Claims Lack Support

/in

Plant Paper Inc. will modify or discontinue certain green marketing claims on its bamboo toilet and facial tissues following recommendations from the Better Business Bureau (BBB) National Programs’ National Advertising Division (NAD), according to a decision summary posted November 3, 2025.

On its website and social media, Plant Paper claimed its bamboo products were superior to conventional tissues because they contain no toxic chemicals and are better for the environment.  These claims were challenged by the American Forest & Paper Association, and NAD concluded that Plant Paper lacked sufficient evidence that competitor products were worse for human health and the environment.

For example, although Plant Paper presented test data showing its products contain no bleach, PFAS, or formaldehyde—and cited studies showing that conventional paper can contain formaldehyde and PFAS—it did not provide “reliable, product-specific data demonstrating that most or all conventional tissue brands contain” these substances, the decision summary states.

Similarly, while Plant Paper had evidence of bamboo harvesting’s environmental advantages, such as lower carbon impacts, NAD determined such evidence was “not a good fit” to substantiate its claims that conventional tissue manufacturing harms the environment.

As a result, NAD recommended that Plant Paper modify its claims to avoid implying that conventional tissues contain intentionally added toxic chemicals, are worse for human health, or are more environmentally destructive than its bamboo products.  However, NAD emphasized that Plant Paper is free to continue highlighting that its products are unbleached and free of PFAS and formaldehyde.

Plant Paper agreed to comply with the decision, but said it “respectfully disagrees with NAD’s finding that there was not enough evidence to show the comparative harms of competitor toilet paper products.”

More on BBB National Programs can be found here.

Tyson Foods Drops “Net-Zero” and “Climate-Smart” Claims in Settlement

/in

Tyson Foods, Inc. will stop pledging to achieve “net-zero” climate emissions by 2050 and marketing “climate-smart” beef under a settlement agreement with the Environmental Working Group (EWG) filed in D.C. Superior Court on November 17, 2025.

Under the settlement, Tyson is barred from making similar claims for five years, unless a mutually agreed-upon third-party expert verifies that the claims can be substantiated.  The agreement does not require Tyson to pay any financial penalties.

EWG’s Allegations

EWG alleged that Tyson’s claims were materially deceptive to increasingly eco-conscious consumers, asserting that Tyson has no plan or intention to achieve its net-zero or climate-smart commitments.  Even if Tyson did have a plan, EWG argued that it would be impossible for the company to meet those goals.

“There is no proven or anticipated way to do so at Tyson’s current enormous scale of production, and the offsets required to zero out Tyson’s meat production emissions are both unfathomable and unavailable,” the complaint states.

According to EWG, Tyson made net-zero claims on its website and news releases since 2021, and climate-smart beef claims on its website and sustainability reports for over a year.

Tyson’s Response

Tyson moved to dismiss, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. In a memo supporting the motion, the company contended that its website cannot serve as grounds for jurisdiction and that its climate-smart beef products are not sold in DC.

“Taken to its logical end, Plaintiff’s theory would make this Court the regulator of general corporate speech of any company that makes products sold in D.C. and has a sustainability website,” the memo reads.

Tyson also argued that the company has taken meaningful action to support its net-zero ambitions, including calculating emissions data, launching pilot programs, and investing $42 million to promote the adoption of climate-smart policies.

The case is Environmental Working Group v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 2024-CAB-005935 (D.C. Super. Ct.), filed Sept. 18, 2024.

Climate Neutral Labeling Lawsuit Dismissed by Court

/in ,

A proposed class action lawsuit challenging Mondelēz International, Inc.’s labeling on its “Zbar” snack bars has been tossed by a federal judge, who held that the company’s “climate neutral certified” claim was factual and could not mislead a reasonable consumer.

The court’s October 27, 2025, order turns on the inclusion of the word “certified” in the claim.  Since the product was factually certified by a third party called Change Climate Project, the court found no likelihood of deception, and dismissed the case with prejudice.

“Mondelēz did not advertise that its product was in fact climate neutral, but instead that its product was certified as climate neutral….There is nothing deceptive about Mondelēz including on its packaging a true statement,” the court wrote.

The plaintiff had alleged that the label is likely to mislead a reasonable consumer into believing that the product does not contribute to climate change, despite the fact that the product results in “roughly 54,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent” emissions annually.  According to the complaint, the product only obtained its certification due to the purchase of carbon offset credits, which are often fraudulent.

FTC Green Guides

To support her arguments, the plaintiff pointed to environmental guidance promulgated by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) known as the Green Guides, which are codified into California law.  The Green Guides caution that third-party certifications do not relieve marketers of the obligation to substantiate all claims reasonably conveyed by the certification.

The court, however, found that although the label did not identify the certifier by name, the climate neutral claim’s placement, design, and wording made clear that the certification came from a third party.  Accordingly, “it cannot reasonably be attributed to Mondelēz.”

“Reasonable consumers are generally not expected to conduct independent research to substantiate claims made on a product’s packaging, but neither are they permitted to defy common sense and everyday experiences,” order states.

The case is Salguero v. Mondelēz International, Inc., No. 25-cv-2139 (N.D. Ill.), filed 2/28/2025.

Lawsuit Challenges “Organic” Claims on PFAS-Containing Soil Products

/in ,

A proposed class action lawsuit in California federal court targets Kellogg Supply Inc., arguing that the soil and fertilizer company falsely represents products as “organic” despite containing PFAS such as PFOA and PFOS.

According to the October 29, 2025, complaint, multiple organic-labeled Kellogg products contained levels of specific PFAS that exceed EPA screening thresholds.  Under EPA guidance, these levels “could trigger further action or study under [the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)].”

The plaintiffs contend that “PFAS do not fall within any definition of organic.”  Kellogg’s use of organic labeling “induce[s] consumers into believing that the Products contain only naturally occurring, non-synthetic ingredients and are therefore a superior alternative to competing—and less expensive—products that are not labeled as organic,” the lawsuit states.

While Kellogg’s packaging displays a certification logo from OMRI, a third-party organic certifier, the plaintiffs allege this certification contradicts OMRI’s own standards.  According to the complaint, the certification was granted only because “OMRI does not test for PFAS as part of their process.”

The complaint addresses a common weakness in similar litigation by specifying that the plaintiffs’ own purchased products were among those tested and that proper chain-of-custody procedures were followed.  Judges in other cases have dismissed claims due to inadequate connections between products purchased and laboratory samples.

The lawsuit seeks to represent consumers in California and New York under those states’ consumer protection and false advertising laws.

The case is Valdez v. Kellogg Supply, Inc., No. 25-cv-02917 (S.D. Cal.), filed 10/29/2025.