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.

Apple Moves to Dismiss Watch Band PFAS Suit

/in ,

A proposed class action alleging that Apple Watch bands contain PFAS should be dismissed for lack of standing, Apple told the District Court for the Northern District of California on April 14, 2025.

The plaintiffs in Cavalier v. Apple, Inc., No. 5:25-cv-713, claim that a published study detected PFHxA (a type of PFAS) and “significantly elevated levels of fluorine” in Apple Watch bands, despite Apple’s “health and environmental promises to the contrary.”  The complaint alleges violations of California’s unfair competition law and false advertising law, as well as various fraud claims.

In its motion to dismiss, Apple argues that the plaintiffs failed to link the study results—which were anonymized—to specific Apple products.  “The [study] does not show that Apple Watch bands contain PFAS generally, nor that the particular Watch bands purchased by Plaintiffs contain PFAS,” the motion states, alleging that the complaint fails to plead an injury in fact.

Apple also objects to the plaintiffs’ characterization of PFHxA as “a dangerous form of PFAS that pose significant harms to people and the environment.”  Apple argues that the plaintiffs “provide no evidence” that PFHxA in particular has adverse health effects, and contends that they attempt to “blur the distinctions among PFAS chemicals and create a toxic scare where none exists.”

In addition, Apple argues that its advertising claims—which include statements like “[t]he ultimate device for a healthy life”—are vague and nonspecific and cannot serve as the basis for the plaintiffs’ fraud claims.

The suit is one of several recent cases targeting consumer products alleged to contain PFAS, as plaintiffs increase scrutiny of so-called “forever chemicals” in everyday items.  A hearing on the motion to dismiss is scheduled for July 31, 2025.

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.”