Federal Recyclability Labeling Bill Would Impose National Criteria, FTC Enforcement

/in , , ,

In August, Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Representative Lou Correa (D-CA) introduced bicameral legislation that would establish national criteria and standardized labels for marketing packaging, food service products, and beverage containers as recyclable, compostable, reusable, or refillable.

H.R. 10048 and S. 5302, both introduced August 6, 2026, are House and Senate companion versions of the Truth in Labeling Act of 2026 and are substantively identical, aside from minor textual differences.

The House version has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the Senate version has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

Purpose and Findings

The Truth in Labeling Act states that there is significant consumer confusion about which covered materials are recyclable, compostable, reusable, or refillable, and identifies inconsistent labeling and improper use of the chasing arrows symbol as sources of consumer confusion. The legislation also states that the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Green Guides are outdated and do not provide sufficient information to establish labeling criteria at the national level.

According to the bill’s sponsors, unclear or misleading labels can result in materials being placed in the wrong waste stream, contributing to contamination and making recycling and composting systems less effective.

The legislation is intended to create consistent national standards so that environmental labeling claims better reflect how materials are actually collected and processed.

What the Bill Would Do

The Truth in Labeling Act would establish nationwide definitions and labeling standards for the terms “recyclable,” “compostable,” “reusable,” and “refillable.” The requirements would apply to covered materials: packaging, food service products, and beverage containers. They apply when a producer chooses to label a covered material or is contractually obligated to. A producer is the person who affixes, or directs another to affix, a chasing arrows symbol, label, or other marking indicating recyclability, compostability, reusability, or refillability. It also includes a person who later modifies a properly labeled material so that it no longer qualifies.

A covered material that does not meet the applicable criteria could not display a label or marking, including the chasing arrows symbol or its equivalent, that would lead an ordinary consumer to believe the material is recyclable, compostable, reusable, or refillable.

EPA, in coordination with the FTC and with input from an advisory committee the bill would create, would issue regulations for determining whether a covered material meets the criteria. For recyclability and compostability, it would also describe acceptable qualified claims. EPA would also be required to establish or approve standardized on-package labels within two years of enactment. The standardized labels would include harmonized terminology and iconography and could be supplemented by standardized digital labels, such as QR codes.

EPA would also publish lists of covered materials that meet the criteria.

Recyclable Criteria

A covered material would be considered “recyclable” if it:

  1. Is made in accordance with the design guidelines of the relevant industry, if approved by the EPA Administrator;
  2. Does not include any components, including inks and adhesives, that prevent the material from being recycled, unless it includes on-package instructions describing how to remove and properly dispose of a separable component;
  3. Is collected, separated, or otherwise recovered from the waste stream through an established recycling program for which a responsible end market exists that covers at least 60% of consumers or communities where the item is sold; and
  4. Has a commercial value for recycling and a responsible end market.

A covered material that only meets criteria 1, 2, and 4 may still be eligible for a qualified recyclability claim, provided that:

  • The recycling program covers at least 40% of consumers or communities; and
  • The EPA Administrator has approved a plan for the covered material to be considered recyclable within two years of approval.

Converting covered materials into fuel, or using them to generate electricity, heat, or steam, would not be considered recycling and would not count toward the 60% or 40% thresholds.

The bill would also require all plastic covered materials to bear a resin identification code. The code could not be placed inside a chasing arrows symbol unless the material meets the recyclability criteria and inside placement is the only physically feasible placement, as determined by EPA. This provision would preempt any conflicting state requirement.

Compostable Claims

A covered material would be considered “compostable” if it:

  1. Is designed to be compostable in accordance with the design standards and guidelines of its industry;
  1. Adheres to ASTM International 6400, 6868, or equivalent standard specifications, and does not contain intentionally added PFAS or heavy metals incompatible with compost;
  2. Is capable of being collected and accepted by at least 50% of the established composting programs in the US; and
  3. Is processed by itself or with other covered material categories through controlled biological degradation to make compost or a substantially similar soil amendment.

A covered material that is capable of being collected and accepted by at least 30% of the established composting programs in the US and meets criteria 1, 2, and 4 would be eligible for a qualified claim.

The legislation also specifically prohibits non-compostable plastic or plastic-lined covered material from marketed in a way that might mislead the public, such as green or brown tinting or coloring.

Reusable and Refillable Claims

A covered material could be labeled “reusable” or “refillable” if it:

  1. Is designed to be reusable or refillable in accordance with the relevant industry design standards and guidelines;
  2. Is designed for durability and maintenance to extend the useful life of the covered material and to reduce demand for new production of the covered material;
  3. Can be recirculated or refilled multiple times for the same or a similar purpose in the original format of the covered material;
  4. Is supported by a system or physical infrastructure that is in place to ensure the possibility and likelihood of reuse or refill, provided by a producer or a third party, and designed for convenient reuse or refill; and
  5. is not intended for single use by a consumer.
Deadlines and Enforcement

Enforcement would begin two years after EPA establishes or approves the standardized labels, which are themselves due within two years of enactment. After that, selling, using, distributing, or importing a covered material in violation of the Act would be a deceptive practice under the FTC Act.

The legislation would make exceptions for covered material manufactured more than six months prior to that date. It makes similar exceptions if the criteria are changed and provides a safe harbor for materials on EPA’s published lists.

Apart from the resin identification code provision, the bill would not preempt state law.

State-Level Litigation

The proposed federal standards come as similar recyclability labeling requirements face legal challenges at the state level. As discussed in a previous post, a federal court recently blocked on a preliminary basis enforcement of California’s “Truth in Recycling” law after concluding that challengers were likely to succeed on First Amendment and vagueness claims.

Among other requirements, California’s law generally required products and packaging to satisfy a “60/60” standard for collection and processing before recyclability claims could be made. The Truth in Labeling Act similarly incorporates a 60% threshold into its federal recyclability criteria, although the federal proposal establishes a different regulatory framework and expressly provides for qualified recyclability claims at a lower threshold.

Court Dismisses “Organic” Claims Against Scotts Miracle-Gro Over PFAS Allegations

/in ,

On September 11, 2026, the Southern District of California granted The Scotts Company’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit challenging “organic” representations on soil and fertilizer products allegedly containing PFAS.

According to the court, the plaintiffs allege that Scotts engaged in false advertising by representing certain Miracle-Gro soil and fertilizer products as “organic” even though testing allegedly showed that the products contained PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS. They also argue that Scotts failed to disclose the presence of PFAS and represented that the products were safe for use on edible plants and residential gardens.

The plaintiffs allege that they relied on the “organic” representations when purchasing the Miracle-Gro products and would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less for them, had they known the products contained PFAS.

“Organic” Claims and Safe Harbor

The court noted that California’s safe harbor doctrine generally prevents plaintiffs from bringing unfair competition claims based on conduct that is expressly permitted by law.

Here, the court took judicial notice of the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s (CDFA’s) lists of Registered Organic Input Material (OIM) products. The court noted that the products at issue appeared on the OIM lists. The court further explained that, under California regulations, products registered as OIM are permitted to use the term “organic” on their labels.

As a result, the court concluded that Scotts’ use of the term “organic” was expressly permitted under California’s regulatory scheme and that the plaintiffs could not use California consumer-protection laws to challenge conduct that California regulations specifically permitted. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) without leave to amend because it concluded that the safe harbor doctrine would continue to bar them.

Acknowledging a split in authority over whether the safe harbor spans beyond consumer protection statutes, the court held that it should, because it would otherwise allow plaintiffs to circumvent the doctrine by framing consumer protection claims as common law causes of action. Accordingly, the court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment claims.

PFAS Omission and Other Misrepresentation Claims

The court reached a different conclusion regarding the plaintiffs’ allegation that Scotts failed to disclose the presence of PFAS. The court found that, because California law does not expressly permit Scotts to omit a PFAS disclosure, the safe harbor doctrine did not automatically bar this theory.

However, the court concluded that the plaintiffs did not adequately plead their omission claim. As the court explained, a partial-omission theory generally requires an existing representation that is true but misleading because important information was left out. According to the court, the plaintiffs instead alleged that Scotts’ representations that the products were “organic” and safe for use on edible plants were themselves false. The court therefore found that those allegations could not support a partial-omission theory as pleaded.

The plaintiffs’ separate misrepresentation theory, that the product packaging suggested the products were safe for use on edible plants, also failed. According to the court, the plaintiffs alleged that they relied on the products being labeled “organic” when deciding to purchase them, but did not allege that they relied on the imagery or representations concerning use on edible plants. Thus, the court concluded that they did not adequately plead reliance on that alleged misrepresentation.

Because the court found that the plaintiffs may be able to correct these deficiencies with additional facts or theories, the court dismissed the alternative misrepresentation and omission claims with leave to amend. The court gave the plaintiffs 30 days from the September 11 order to file an amended complaint.

Standing for Unpurchased and Untested Products

Scotts also argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert claims concerning Miracle-Gro products they had not personally purchased or tested. The court noted that there is no controlling Ninth Circuit authority on whether class-action plaintiffs may assert claims based on products they did not purchase. However, the court followed what it described as the “prevailing view” in the Ninth Circuit: plaintiffs may pursue claims involving unpurchased products where the products and alleged misrepresentations are substantially similar.

The court found that standard satisfied for the products identified in the complaint. Among other similarities, the products were Miracle-Gro soil and fertilizer products represented as organic, marketed as safe for use on edible plants, alleged to contain PFAS, and alleged to omit disclosure of PFAS. The plaintiffs independently tested seven products, including the products they purchased, and all seven contained PFOS, while six contained both PFOS and PFOA. Based on those allegations, the court concluded that the plaintiffs had standing to pursue claims concerning the identified products, including products they had not personally purchased or tested.

The court did not, however, extend standing to unidentified products. Although the plaintiffs sought to challenge all Scotts Miracle-Gro soil and fertilizer products represented as organic, the court limited their claims to the products specifically identified in the complaint.

The case is Calcagno v. Scotts Co. LLC, No. 3:25-cv-02661 (S.D. Cal.).

California Governor Vetoes Recycled-Content Substantiation Bill

/in , ,

On September 27, 2026, California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed Assembly Bill 2253 (“AB 2253”), legislation intended to strengthen substantiation requirements for recycled-content claims made on consumer products.

In his veto message, Governor Newsom expressed concern that expanding recycled-content documentation requirements would unduly burden manufacturers and suppliers already facing economic pressures “caused by federal tariff and trade policy actions.” He stated that adding new compliance requirements could compound those pressures while providing limited additional benefit to consumers.

What AB 2253 Would Have Done

California law currently requires manufacturers and suppliers making recycled-content claims about plastic food containers to maintain documentation supporting those claims. Manufacturers must document that the claimed recycled material was diverted from the waste stream during the manufacturing process or after consumer use, and that the claim complies with the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Green Guides.

AB 2253 would have expanded these requirements to all products making voluntary recycled-content claims beginning January 1, 2030.

The bill also would have imposed more specific substantiation requirements. A recycled-content claim could not exceed the amount of third-party-certified recycled content introduced into the manufacturer’s or supplier’s overall supply stream for the material used in that product line. Claims would also have been required to rely on specified chain-of-custody methodologies for calculating recycled content.

For products other than plastic food containers, manufacturers and suppliers would have been required to provide supporting documentation to the California Attorney General upon request if the Attorney General suspected a violation. The bill also provided an option for manufacturers and suppliers to use qualified independent third-party auditors to review their recycled-content accounting and supporting records.

Governor Newsom’s veto leaves California’s existing requirements for recycled-content claims applicable to plastic food container products in place, rather than extending the proposed substantiation framework to recycled-content claims across all product categories.

Competing Views

Supporters of AB 2253 argued that the additional requirements were necessary to prevent misleading recycled-content claims. Assemblymember Tasha Boerner, the bill’s author, argued that some companies use recycled-content credits and accounting mechanisms to make claims that do not accurately reflect the recycled material used in their products.

Californians Against Waste, which sponsored AB 2253, criticized the veto as a missed opportunity to bring greater truth and accountability to recycled-content claims. Kayla Robinson, the organization’s Legislative Director, argued that consumers should be able to expect a “made with recycled content” claim to reflect recycled material actually used in the product, rather than recycled-content credits or other accounting mechanisms.

Federal Legislation on Recycled-Content Claims

The veto also comes amid federal efforts to address how recycled-content claims may be substantiated. The proposed Recycled Materials Attribution Act of 2026 (H.R.7502) would prohibit misleading recycled-content advertising while expressly recognizing mass-balance accounting as an acceptable method for substantiating recycled-content claims when used in accordance with a third-party certification system. The federal bill would also direct the FTC to update the Green Guides and issue guidance establishing a framework for mass-balance recycled-content claims.

On September 16, 2026, the House Energy and Commerce Committee voted 28-0 to order the bill reported to the full House.

The differing approaches reflect an ongoing debate over how recycled-content claims should be substantiated while providing consumers with accurate information.

Federal Court Blocks California’s “Truth in Recycling” Law on First Amendment Grounds

/in , , ,

A federal court has preliminarily blocked California’s “Truth in Recycling” law, ruling that its restrictions on recyclability claims are likely unconstitutional under the First Amendment and finding that several of its key provisions are impermissibly vague under the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a July 14, 2026, order, the Southern District of California concluded that although the provisions likely to be unconstitutionally vague could be severed from the statute, the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their broader First Amendment challenge.  As a result, the court enjoined enforcement of the law in its entirety pending further litigation.

What California’s “Truth in Recycling” Law Requires

California enacted SB 343, often referred to as the “Truth in Recycling” or “Truth in Labeling” law, in October 2021.  The law declares recyclability claims—including the chasing arrows symbol—deceptive or misleading unless certain criteria are met.  Chief among them is the “60/60 requirement,” which mandates that the labeled product or packaging be:

  1. Collected for recycling by jurisdictions serving at least 60% of Californians; and
  2. Processed by facilities serving at least 60% of recycling programs statewide, with the collected material sent to and reclaimed at a facility consistent with the Basel Convention (a 1989 treaty governing the transnational movement of hazardous waste).

The law also requires that:

  • The labeled product or packaging “routinely” become feedstock used to produce new products or packaging;
  • Plastic packaging not include any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent recyclability, according to guidance published by a plastics trade association; and
  • Plastic products and non-plastic products and packaging be “designed to ensure recyclability” and not include any components, inks, adhesives, or labels that prevent recyclability.

These restrictions were set to take effect on October 4, 2026.  The plaintiffs—a coalition of roughly twenty trade associations spanning food, packaging, grocery, and retail industries—sued Attorney General Rob Bonta in March 2026, arguing the law is unconstitutional on its face.

Key Provisions Likely Unconstitutionally Vague

The plaintiffs argue that four of the law’s requirements are unconstitutionally vague under the Fourteenth Amendment.  For the purposes of a preliminary injunction, the court found that they are likely to succeed on each challenge:

  1. The “routinely becomes feedstock” provision, because the meaning of “routinely” is unclear.
  2. The Basel Convention requirement, because manufacturers were given no guidance on how compliance with the provision will be determined, which elements of the convention will be considered in reaching a determination, and which facilities are currently in compliance.
  3. The reference to industry guidance, because it is ambiguous whether materials categorized as “Detrimental to Recycling” or “Tolerated But Needs Improvement” are permissible, and because SB 343 does not address what happens when the guidance changes.
  4. The ensures or prevents recyclability provision, because the law provides no guidance on what those terms mean.

The court found all four requirements severable from the remaining text of the law, including the 60/60 requirement—meaning that the rest of the law could still theoretically be allowed to take effect even if the four vague provisions were enjoined.

First Amendment Analysis

The remainder of the law could not withstand scrutiny under the First Amendment, however.

As a threshold matter, the court first determined that the speech at issue is only “potentially” misleading, and not “inherently” misleading, and therefore within the scope of the First Amendment.  The court then applied the remaining prongs of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission, the framework applicable to many regulations of commercial speech.

While finding that California has substantial interests in (1) improving recycling rates and (2) reducing consumer confusion, the court concluded that neither interest was directly advanced by the law.  Addressing recycling rates first, the court held that California failed to adequately support its assertion that businesses would redesign products and packaging to make them recyclable under the law instead of simply removing their recyclability claims.  Gains in efficiency at recycling facilities from removing contaminants “may be substantially outweighed by the decreased rate at which recyclable materials reach those facilities,” the order states.

As to consumer confusion, the court held that the reduced number of recyclability claims would leave customers “with less information than they would receive in the absence of SB 343’s regulatory scheme.”  For example, a product only recyclable in one part of California could not be labeled with that information because the 60/60 requirement would not be satisfied, the court observed.

Finally, the court also held that the law is more extensive than necessary to serve its interests, observing that less extensive regulations, such as required disclosure of materials that may limit recycling, would also advance the state’s goal.

The case is California League of Food Producers v. Bonta, No. 3:26-cv-1675 (S.D. Cal.), filed March 17, 2026.

Bipartisan Bill Would Give Safer Choice Program Its First Statutory Authorization

/in , ,
Update (October 16, 2026)

On September 24, 2026, Reps. Scott Peters (D-CA) and Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-IA) introduced H.R. 10591, the House companion to the Senate’s Safer Choice Program Authorization Act of 2026.

* * *

For a voluntary program with roughly 2,000 certified products and unusually broad industry support, Safer Choice has always rested on thin statutory footing.  EPA has run it for more than a decade under general Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authority, without any statute naming the program or directing the agency to operate it.  A bill introduced in the Senate on June 2, 2026, would change that.

What the Bill Does

Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and Jon Husted (R-OH) introduced S. 4664, the Safer Choice Program Authorization Act of 2026, which would direct the EPA administrator to carry out a voluntary Safer Choice Program encompassing both the Safer Choice and Design for the Environment (DfE) Standards. The bill has been read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

The legislation would codify much of what EPA already does administratively.  It directs the Administrator to certify products against those Standards, criteria the agency updated in 2024; to maintain the Safer Chemical Ingredients List; and to authorize use of the Safer Choice and DfE labels, which the bill treats as agency marks that may not be used in a false or unauthorized manner.  It would formalize the role of qualified third-party profilers—the outside reviewers who evaluate ingredients and formulations—subject to independence and conflict-of-interest requirements, while reserving final certification decisions to the administrator.  The bill would also authorize the administrator to add product categories—a direction EPA explored through a 2023 request for comment.  It directs coordination with the Food and Drug Administration and the Consumer Product Safety Commission and authorizes $6 million per year for fiscal years 2028 through 2034.

Why It Matters

Because Congress never authorized Safer Choice, the program has been exposed to elimination through budget and reorganization decisions rather than legislation.  Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership recommended transitioning the Safer Choice program to the private sector, and in 2025 EPA reportedly moved the program into a larger chemicals division as part of a broader reorganization.  The administration’s recent budget requests have proposed steep reductions across EPA.  Statutory authorization would make the program meaningfully harder to unwind administratively.

Who Is Affected

The interested parties here are mostly proponents.  Cleaning-product manufacturers account for most Safer Choice certifications, and they, along with ingredient suppliers, retailers, and institutional and government purchasers who use the label as a procurement benchmark, have an interest in the program’s continuity.  Trade associations representing these sectors have supported authorization.  In addition, third-party profilers would gain a defined statutory role under the legislation.

Bill Targets Misleading Recycled Content Claims, Endorses Mass-Balance Accounting

/in ,
Update (October 16, 2026)

On September 30, 2026, a Senate companion bill for the Recycled Materials Attribution Act of 2026 was introduced by Senator Curtis (R-UT) as S. 5674.

* * *

A bipartisan group of lawmakers has introduced legislation to prohibit misleading recycled content claims and establish mass-balance accounting as an acceptable method for substantiating them.

The Recycled Materials Attribution Act of 2026 was introduced by Rep. Langworthy (R-NY) on February 11, 2026, and is currently pending before the House Energy and Commerce Committee.  The text of H.R. 7502 was made publicly available this month.

The bill would prohibit misleading recycled content advertising claims, enforceable by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  Fuels produced and sold as an end product would also be ineligible for recycled content marketing.  At the same time, the legislation recognizes mass-balance accounting as an acceptable method for substantiating recycled content claims, provided its use complies with a third-party certification system.  The legislation defines recycling to include both mechanical and non-mechanical recycling.

The bill would require the FTC to update the Green Guides—the agency’s guidance for environmental marketing claims—within one year to reflect these requirements.  The FTC would additionally be required to issue guidance clarifying that mass balance accounting representations be based on “competent and reliable scientific evidence” and provide a “clear and consistent framework” for recycled content claims.

A separate provision would preempt state and local laws relating to the legislation’s prohibition and enforcement provisions.

The bill is backed by the Recycling Leadership Council (RLC), a coalition that includes the American Chemistry Council, American Circular Textiles, and the Consumer Brands Association.

“Advanced technology in recycling is transforming how we recover and reuse materials that would otherwise end up in landfills, but our regulations have remained stagnant,” Rep. Langworthy said in a statement released by the RLC.  “This much-needed legislation changes that by modernizing and updating the rules with a uniform national standard that protects consumers from misleading claims while giving American manufacturers the certainty they need to invest, innovate, and compete.”

Critics, including the Plastic Pollution Coalition, argue that the bill “creates a system that enables backdoor accounting practices to substantiate marketing claims while promoting chemical recycling,” including “chemical recycling processes that are just turning plastics into fuels.”

Pet Food Brand to Modify ‘Made in USA’ and ‘All Natural’ Claims After NAD Review

/in ,

Sundays for Dogs will discontinue certain “Made in USA” and “all natural ingredients” claims following recommendations from the Better Business Bureau’s National Advertising Division (NAD), the industry self-regulatory body announced April 17, 2026.

According to NAD, the dog food manufacturer sources most of its ingredients domestically.  However, because “certain key ingredients, including beef bone and fish oil, are sourced from New Zealand,” NAD recommended that Sundays add qualifying language to its “Made in USA” representations.

“Consistent with Federal Trade Commission guidance, NAD determined that because these ingredients are essential to the product’s function, an unqualified ‘Made in USA’ claim is not appropriate, even if the amount of foreign content is small,” the decision summary states.

Other contested claims included “all natural ingredients” and “100% meat and superfoods.”  When accompanied by imagery suggesting whole fruits and vegetables, NAD found those claims misleading because Sundays uses nutrient extracts rather than whole-food ingredients.  Similar claims were deemed acceptable in other contexts, however.

NAD also found adequate substantiation for the brand’s “no synthetic additives” claim, but recommended that Sundays stop implying that competing products contain synthetic additives.

The challenge, which concerned claims on the company’s website and social media channels, was brought by rival pet food maker The Farmer’s Dog, Inc.  Sundays agreed to comply with NAD’s recommendations.

California Bill Would Strip ‘Compostable’ Label from Plastic Products

/in ,

California lawmakers are weighing legislation targeting plastics in organic waste streams, characterizing plastic as a contaminant in the composting process.

Beginning January 1, 2027, Assembly Bill 1812 would prohibit the sale of products labeled with the terms “compostable” or “home compostable” that are made wholly or partially of plastic.  It would also update the requirements for those representations by eliminating references to ASTM standards for plastic compostability, instead limiting the labels to products that are “OK compost HOME” certified or meet a different standard adopted by CalRecycle.

Fiber products that are demonstrated to not incorporate any plastics or polymers would not be required to meet those requirements, unless CalRecycle adopts or approves a compostability standard specifically for fiber products.

Under existing California law, products making compostability claims must already satisfy all of the following conditions:

  • Be an allowable organic input under the USDA National Organic Program
  • Contain no more than 100 ppm of total organic fluorine
  • Be labeled in a way that distinguishes them from non-compostable products upon reasonable consumer inspection and supports efficient processing at solid waste facilities
  • Be designed to be associated with the recovery of desirable organic waste

AB 1812 was introduced February 10, 2026, and amended March 23.  On April 13, the bill passed the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and was re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

Keurig Hit with Class Action over ‘Recyclable’ K-Cups

/in

A California consumer has launched a putative class action against Keurig Dr. Pepper, alleging that the beverage giant’s single-serve coffee pods are deceptively labeled as “recyclable” because most recycling centers are unable to accept them.

According to the complaint, filed April 7, 2026, Keurig K-Cups are virtually non-recyclable due to their small size, multi-material design, residual coffee grounds and liquids, and limited economic value in recycling streams.

“Despite these facts, Keurig promotes its K-Cup pods as ‘recyclable’ because they are made from polypropylene #5 plastic,” the complaint alleges.  “However, the company relies on a purely theoretical definition of recyclability that ignores the fundamental principles outlined in the FTC’s Green Guides and does not align with consumer understanding.”

The challenged representations are allegedly made on product packaging, Keurig’s website, online retail listings, and social media alongside the “chasing arrows” recyclability symbol.

The complaint further alleges that recycling centers serving at least 60 percent of US consumers do not accept K-Cups—the threshold for making unqualified recyclability claims under the Green Guides, which provide guidance for environmental marketing claims and are incorporated into California law.  Qualifying language telling consumers to “check locally” or noting that the pods “are not recycled in many communities” is shown in fine print that is difficult to read, the complaint says.

“If Plaintiff had known that the Products were not recyclable, Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products,” the complaint states.  “At a minimum, Plaintiff would not have paid as much as he did if he had known the Products could not be recycled.”

The lawsuit also notes that Keurig’s recyclability claims have previously been challenged.  In 2023, Keurig settled similar allegations for $10 million but allegedly made only “minor modifications” to its marketing.  The complaint also references a civil penalty imposed by the Securities and Exchange Commission because the company failed to disclose recyclability concerns raised by recycling facilities.

The plaintiff alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as for negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

The case is Dixon v. Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc., No. 26-cv-2172 (S.D. Cal.), filed 4/7/2026.

Update (April 15, 2026)

On April 10, 2026, an almost identical putative class action was filed against Keurig in New York.  That case is Sulli v. Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc., No. 26-cv-6420 (W.D.N.Y.), filed 4/10/2026.

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.