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.

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.

Court Dismisses PFAS False Advertising Suit Against Coca-Cola – What Lessons Should Be Learned?

/in ,

On September 29, 2025, the Southern District of New York dismissed a PFAS false advertising suit against Coca-Cola over its Simply juice products, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing and failed to show a link between third-party PFAS testing and his actual purchases.  The court found no plausible economic or benefit-of-bargain injury.  The plaintiff alleged that Simply juices were falsely marketed as “All Natural” despite the presence of PFAS.

The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to allege the tested samples were from his purchases or that PFAS presence rendered the products less valuable.  Relying on precedents such as TransUnion v. Ramirez and Axon v. Florida’s Natural Growers, the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice for lack of standing.

The ruling reinforces that PFAS consumer mislabeling cases must connect laboratory testing to specific purchases and articulate a concrete injury to survive dismissal.  So, what lessons should be learned?

1. Laboratory Testing Link

Courts are dismissing PFAS mislabeling cases when the plaintiff fails to connect the specific product they purchased to the lab-tested sample.  Merely alleging that “testing of similar products” revealed PFAS, without tying that testing to the actual unit or batch purchased, is often viewed as too speculative.

2. Concrete Injury Requirement

Under TransUnion v. Ramirez and Spokeo v. Robins, plaintiffs must show a concrete, particularized injury, not just an abstract statutory violation or moral objection.  In PFAS suits, courts have required plaintiffs to allege:

  • That they overpaid for a product falsely marketed as “PFAS-free” or “non-toxic,” and
  • That the product they actually bought contained PFAS in measurable amounts.

Where plaintiffs only claim “fear of exposure,” “diminished value,” or cite general environmental harms, dismissal for lack of Article III standing is common.

3. Evidentiary and Pleading Implications

To survive Rule 12(b)(6):

  • Plaintiffs must plead chain-of-custody facts linking test results to the purchased item (e.g., same UPC, batch code, or manufacturing lot).
  • They should specify PFAS analytes and concentrations, not just allege “detectable PFAS” or presence of total organic fluorine.
  • Plaintiffs often rely on third-party advocacy testing (e.g., Mamavation, Environmental Working Group), but courts treat those as insufficient when plaintiffs fail to link the test results to the specific products they purchased.
4. Practical Takeaway for Defendants and Counsel

For companies facing PFAS labeling suits, early motions to dismiss can succeed by emphasizing:

  • Lack of product-specific testing linkage;
  • Lack of concrete injury or economic harm;
  • Compliance with trace-level detection limits (e.g., parts-per-trillion levels with no safety threshold exceeded).

The case is Lurenz v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 7:22-cv-10941 (S.D.N.Y.), filed 12/28/2022.  More details are available in a previous post.

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.

Update – November 11, 2025

Slides from Ms. Hantman’s presentation, “Green Marketing Claims, PFAS, and Litigation,” are now available here.