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.

California Settles $1.75M Lawsuit Over False Plastic Bag Recycling Claims, Launches Another

/in , , , ,

California’s attorney general has reached a $1.75 million settlement with four plastic bag producers and initiated a lawsuit against three more, alleging that the companies falsely claimed their plastic bags were recyclable to comply with a state ban on single-use plastic bags known as SB 270.

According to the October 17, 2025, announcement, the defendants in both cases labeled their bags with the “chasing arrows” recycling symbol, made recyclability claims, and self-certified their products as recyclable.  However, when the attorney general’s office sent demand letters requiring that the producers substantiate their claims, they were allegedly unable to provide sufficient evidence.

“[D]espite the manufacturers’ claims and widespread consumer belief, these bags do not, in fact, appear to generally be recyclable, let alone ‘recyclable in the state,’ as SB 270 requires,” the announcement states.

California’s recycling authority, CalRecycle, has “released several reports indicating that the vast majority of plastic carryout bags in California are not being recycled in California,” the most recent complaint states.  Even plastic bags deposited in designated collection bins mostly “end up in landfills or incinerators or are shipped to other countries.”

In addition to violating SB 270, all defendants face alleged violations of California’s Environmental Marketing Claims Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law.  Some of the violations stem from alleged noncompliance with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Green Guides, which are incorporated into California law.

The settlement is subject to court approval.  A copy of the proposed final judgement can be found here.

Judge Approves Seven-Figure Settlement in Rust-Oleum Greenwashing Case

/in , ,

Rust-Oleum will pay $1.5 million to resolve a class action challenging green marketing claims on its “Krud Kutter” cleaning products, under a settlement approved by the Northern District of California on October 2, 2025.

As part of the agreement, Rust-Oleum must permanently remove “Non-Toxic” claims from product labels.  In addition, the company must qualify its “Earth Friendly” claims with an asterisk that directs consumers to clarifying language on the back label, such as “Contains no inorganic phosphates, hazardous solvents, or environmentally harmful surfactants.”

The plaintiff argued these claims were deceptive because Krud Kutter products contain hazardous ingredients.  “The Products’ [safety data sheets (SDSs)] make clear that the Products are certainly not” non-toxic or earth-friendly, the first amended complaint stated.

The complaint also claimed the label language violated Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) regulations under the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA), which prohibit language that “negates or disclaims” required caution statements.

After attorney fees, litigation costs, and settlement administration expenses, approximately $550,000 will be distributed among more than 23,000 class members.  Any remaining funds will go to Earthjustice and Mamavation, a consumer watchdog group.

The case is Bush v. Rust-Oleum Corp., No. 3:20-cv-03268 (N.D. Cal.), filed 5/13/2020.  More details are available in a previous post.

Irene Hantman to Present at Chemical Watch Summit in September

/in , ,

Verdant Law is pleased to announce that Irene Hantman will present on litigation over green marketing claims at Chemical Watch’s Regulatory Summit North America 2025.

Ms. Hantman’s September 18 presentation will cover noteworthy recent cases, including suits against manufacturers of everyday consumer products over alleged PFAS content.  The presentation will also discuss possible impacts from state-level PFAS disclosure laws, which may lead to a floodgate of new lawsuits.

Following the 3:05pm presentation, Ms. Hantman will be joined by other experts for a Q&A session.

The Regulatory Summit will be held in Alexandria, Virginia, from September 15–18.  Virtual attendance options are available.

Gore-Tex Maker Faces PFAS Greenwashing Allegations

/in ,

A proposed federal class action has been filed against W.L. Gore & Associates, accusing the company of systematically misleading customers about the sustainability of its widely used Gore-Tex Fabric.

The February 11 complaint alleges that Gore-Tex is produced using PFAS, chemicals that pose “extremely dangerous health and environmental effects” and allegedly shed from Gore-Tex during ordinary use.  Despite this, the plaintiffs argue that Gore markets the fabric as “non-toxic and safe for the user” and “environmentally sound,” creating a false impression about its safety and sustainability.

“Instead of coming clean on its use of PFAS and their environmental consequences, Gore…embark[ed] on a significant greenwashing campaign full of material misrepresentations and omissions designed to deceive eco-conscious consumers and safeguard Gore’s profits,” the complaint states.

The suit also challenges “[Perfluorinated Chemical (PFC)]* Free Laminate” claims on tags affixed to Gore-Tex products.  According to the complaint, the claim “misconstrues the common definition of the term ‘PFC’ by unilaterally excluding well-known PFC-based chemicals, such as PTFE and ePTFE,” which are PFAS allegedly used to make several Gore products—despite efforts by the company to phase out their use.

The plaintiffs allege that Gore’s practices violate laws in 28 states and DC, including consumer protection, fraudulent concealment, and unfair competition laws.  They seek damages, disgorgement, and an order enjoining Gore from continuing its allegedly unlawful business practices.

The suit comes shortly after Maryland’s Attorney General sued Gore in December 2024, alleging that Gore knowingly “polluted the air and water around its facilities with” PFAS.  Additionally, in 2022, a former employee sued Gore over health effects allegedly stemming from PFAS exposure.

Gore-Tex is used in a variety of companies’ outdoor apparel, including outerwear and athletic shoes.  According to the complaint, Gore-Tex has a 70% market share in the waterproof-breathable textile market.

The case is Mason v. W.L Gore & Associates, No. 2:25-cv-49 (E.D. Wash.).

California Sues ExxonMobil for Deceptive Marketing on Plastic Recycling

/in , , ,

ExxonMobil deceived the people of California by falsely promoting single-use plastics as sustainable, a complaint filed by California’s attorney general on September 23, 2024, alleges.

The lawsuit, filed in the San Francisco County Superior Court, argues that ExxonMobil conducted a “decades-long campaign of deception” to convince the public that plastics recycling was a sustainable solution to plastic waste, despite knowing that plastics recycling “is technically and economically nonviable to handle the amount of plastic waste [the company] produces.”  ExxonMobil is the largest producer of plastic polymers in the world.

“ExxonMobil’s deceptions undermined consumers’ ability to make informed choices to avoid the catastrophic harms we are experiencing,” the complaint states.  The attorney general asserts that “single-use plastic chokes our waterways, poisons our oceans, harms already endangered and threatened wildlife, blights our landscapes, contaminates the recycling stream, increases waste management costs, pollutes our drinking water, and expands landfills.”

Special focus was given in the complaint to ExxonMobil’s claims about “advanced recycling,” a collection of non-mechanical recycling technologies designed to convert certain plastic wastes into “fuels, chemicals, waxes, and petrochemical feedstock.”  According to the suit, ExxonMobil conceals several key limitations of its advanced recycling program, including that only 8% of processed waste becomes new plastic and that its “certified circular polymers” are made of “virtually no waste plastic.”

The lawsuit alleges violations of state nuisance, natural resources, water pollution, false advertisement, and unfair competition laws.  The complaint seeks abatement funds, disgorgement, and civil penalties.  California’s attorney general reportedly said they want “billions of dollars” for the abatement fund.

It has been reported that ExxonMobil responded by claiming that California officials have known for decades that their state recycling program is ineffective, arguing that the officials “failed to act, and now…seek to blame others.” The company has been quoted as asserting that “[i]nstead of suing us, they could have worked with use to fix the problem and keep plastic out of landfills.”

Irene Hantman and Philip Moffat Present on Green Marketing at PSX 2024

/in ,

Verdant Law is pleased to announce that Irene Hantman and Philip Moffat presented on green marketing and product stewardship at the PSX 2024 conference in Denver.  Their October 16 presentation covered greenwashing, US regulation of green marketing, and enforcement and litigation.

Green marketing is on the rise, partly because consumers are willing to pay more for “green” products. However, many green marketing claims are overstated.  In the presentation, Ms. Hantman and Mr. Moffat described the various ways in which green marketing claims can be misleading and the potential consequences of deceptive marketing.

Special focus was given to the Green Guides, guidance published by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) that helps advertisers avoid making unfair or deceptive claims.  While the Green Guides are non-binding, they provide insight into what advertising claims the FTC may determine to be illegal.  The presentation noted that the FTC is considering whether the Green Guides should be codified as rules and whether the commission should revisit its guidance for terms like “recyclable” and “degradable.”

The presentation also covered notable enforcement actions and litigation pertaining to green marking, including California’s recent suit against ExxonMobil for deceptive public messaging about plastic recycling.  Ms. Hantman and Mr. Moffat concluded by emphasizing the importance of developing green marketing claims that are clear, specific, and substantiated with evidence.

PSX is an annual conference hosted by the Product Stewardship Society.  According to its website, PSX is “the most comprehensive leadership forum for strategies that guide product stewardship professionals in an ever-changing global economy.”  Ms. Hantman serves on the PSX Conference Program Committee.

If you have any questions about the presentation, please contact Ms. Hantman or Mr. Moffat.

Class Action Against Coca-Cola for “100% Recyclable” Claims Advances

/in , ,

A proposed class action against Coca-Cola and other companies selling bottled water can proceed after the plaintiffs provided survey results indicating that consumers may be misled by Coca-Cola’s recyclability claims, the Northern District of California ruled in the case Swartz v. The Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:21-cv-04643.

Crucial to the case are the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, which provide guidance for environmental marketing claims and are codified into California law.  The Green Guides allow marketers to make unqualified recyclable claims “if the entire product or package, excluding minor incidental components, is recyclable” by facilities available to “at least 60 percent” of Californians.

The plaintiffs initially alleged that the defendants’ “100% Recyclable” claims are false and misleading because most of the bottles are not recycled in practice.  The judge rejected that argument, stating that reasonable consumers would not understand the claims “to mean that the entire product will always be recycled.”  The plaintiff’s next complaint placed greater emphasis on the bottles’ caps and labels, which are allegedly not recyclable.  However, the court found inadequate factual support for their claims, which were also undermined because bottle caps and labels constitute minor components under the Green Guides.

The plaintiffs’ newest complaint overcomes those shortfalls, Judge James Donato ruled on April 8, 2024.  The survey results indicate that consumers understand the defendant’s claims to mean the entire bottle (including bottle caps and labels) are recyclable, and the defendants “expressly qualify” their recyclability as “100%.”  As a result, the plaintiffs can plausibly allege that “these representations to consumers are different from” unqualified claims protected by the Green Guides, he said.

The court also determined that there was sufficient factual support for the plaintiffs’ deception claims to move forward.  Because the defendant’s product labels are “disposed of as refuse” by facilities responsible for over 40% of the relevant type of bottle recycling in California, it is plausible that the “defendant’s products are not capable of being ‘100%’ recycled by plants in California,” the court ruled.

The lawsuit consolidates actions brought separately by consumers and the Sierra Club.  In addition to Coca-Cola, the suit names BlueTriton Brands and Niagara Bottling as defendants.  Between the three companies, water bottles are sold under the brand labels Dasani, Deer Park, Poland Spring, Niagara, Kirkland Signature, and others.

 

Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss in Colgate Toothpaste Greenwashing Case

/in ,

A suit alleging that the Colgate-Palmolive Company (“Colgate”) misrepresented toothpaste tubes as recyclable will be allowed to proceed, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on February 6, 2024.

The case, Della v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, 2024 WL 457798, concerns recycling claims featured by the company’s Colgate and Tom’s of Maine-branded toothpaste tubes.  Made entirely of plastic, these tubes are theoretically less difficult to recycle than “traditional” toothpaste tubes.  The plaintiffs allege, however, that these claims would mislead a reasonable consumer.  According to the plaintiffs, the tubes are universally rejected by recycling facilities because facilities are unable to distinguish between Colgate’s tubes and traditional tubes and because the tubes cannot be fully emptied of toothpaste, which acts as a contaminant in the recycling process.

Colgate moved to dismiss, arguing that its claims were not misleading because the composition of its toothpaste tubes is compatible with a recycling stream that is available to most Californians.  In other words, the recyclability claims were accurate because the tubes are intrinsically capable of being recycled even if they are not recycled every time they are placed in a recycling bin.  Colgate also pointed to a statement on the packaging inviting consumers to “learn more” on their websites, which provided more comprehensive information about the products’ recyclability.

Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero rejected Colgate’s arguments.  Common sense would not lead a consumer to believe that a product labelled as recyclable would not be recyclable anywhere, he said.  He also stated that the invitation for consumers to learn more online would not remedy a misleading statement on the packaging, writing that “courts are generally reluctant to charge a reasonable consumer with the obligation of reviewing product websites or other written product materials before purchasing the product.”

More information on the case can be found in a previous Verdant Law blog post.

Summary Judgment Denied in “Krud Kutter” Greenwashing Class Suit

/in ,

A class action suit alleging that Rust-Oleum Corporation mislabeled products as “non-toxic” and “Earth friendly” can go to trial, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on January 26, 2024.

The case, Bush v. Rust-Oleum Corp., No. 3:20-cv-03268, concerns the environmental claims made on the labels of Rust-Oleum’s “Krud Kutter” cleaning products.  Plaintiff Anthony Bush alleges that the claims would lead a reasonable consumer to believe that the products do not contain ingredients that are harmful to humans, animals, or the environment.  Bush alleges that these claims are misleading because the products contain multiple ingredients that are known to cause toxic effects.

Rust-Oleum moved for summary judgment, pointing to testimony given by the plaintiff and his expert toxicologist in which they acknowledged that risk can never be fully eliminated; even water can be hazardous in excess.  Rust-Oleum argued that this evidence shows that a reasonable consumer would not believe that the products are completely risk-free.  In addition, Rust-Oleum contended that the labels themselves contradicted the plaintiff’s theory of deception: the phrase “Caution: Eye and Skin Irritant” is included next to the words “Non-Toxic,” and the rear of the products’ labels include a definition of the “Earth friendly” claim.

Judge Laurel Beeler rejected Rust-Oleum’s arguments, saying that “[d]eposition testimony of individuals…is at best anecdotal evidence that isn’t dispositive of how a reasonable consumer interprets the challenged claims.”  Beeler also found that genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding the qualifying language included on the products’ label.  The plaintiff’s expert toxicologist alleges toxic effects besides eye and skin irritation and the defendant’s own surveys show that most customers do not read the small font explanation of the “Earth friendly” claim, she said.

Also at issue in the case are the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, which help marketers avoid making misleading environmental claims.  Bush cited the Green Guides’ commentary on the phrase “non-toxic”—“[a] non-toxic claim likely conveys that a product, package, or service is non-toxic both for humans and for the environment generally”—in his complaint, but Beeler agreed with Rust-Oleum that the Green Guides are not decisive under the reasonable-consumer test.