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.

California to Require Substantiation of Carbon Neutral Claims

/in , ,

Under a new California law enacted on October 7, 2023, companies selling carbon offsets or making carbon-neutral claims must now provide evidence to substantiate these measures and claims.

The law requires that businesses marketing carbon offsets disclose specific information on their websites.  This includes details on how emissions reductions were estimated, data and calculation methods to verify these estimates, whether there is third-party oversight, and the accountability measures in place if the project is not completed or proves to be less effective than advertised.  Companies that buy offsets will be required to provide an overview of each offset, including the business that sold the offset, on their websites.

In addition, the measure requires companies that claim to be carbon neutral or claim that they have made significant emissions reductions to support their claims with all available evidence.  Companies must also disclose whether there is third-party oversight of their claims or supporting data.

The law, which is reportedly the first of its kind in the US, authorizes fines of up to $500,000 per violation.  In a press release, the law’s author characterized the legislation as providing necessary transparency amid concerns about corporate greenwashing and the effectiveness of many carbon offsets.

Colgate Faces False Advertisement Suit Over Recyclable Claims

/in

A class action lawsuit has been filed in a California federal court against the Colgate-Palmolive Company (“Colgate”), alleging the company falsely advertises its Colgate and Tom’s of Maine branded toothpaste tubes as recyclable. The complaint alleges that Colgate’s claims are a violation of the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, which prohibits a product from being called recyclable “unless there is an established recycling program, municipal or private, through which the product will be converted into, or used in, another product or package.”

The complaint also alleges California Business and Professions Code violations, which make it “unlawful for any person to make untruthful, deceptive, or misleading environmental marketing claims.”

A number of Colgate branded products, including but not limited to its popular products Colgate MaxFresh Toothpaste, Colgate Optic White Toothpaste, and Colgate Sensitive Toothpaste, feature the three-arrow recycling symbol atop the language “Recyclable Tube.” The company’s Tom’s of Maine product packaging advertises its toothpaste tubes as “The First of its Kind Recyclable Tube.” This language is used on over ten of its toothpaste products. None of the packaging of these products, Colgate or Tom’s of Maine, includes language that limits or qualifies the recyclability claims.

Additional recyclability claims are made on the brands’ websites. The Tom’s of Maine website features the following claims, which the Plaintiff alleges are misrepresentations:

  • “Recyclable Tube”
  • “Recycle Me!”
  • “Buy Smart – By reaching for this toothpaste tube you’re actively making a difference.”
  • “Recycle It – Our recyclable tube is not meant for a landfill – it gets turned into useful products.”
  • “As the leaders in the oral care industry, we wanted to create a recyclable alternative.”

While the toothpaste tubes are theoretically recyclable, a consultant at the Association of Plastic Recyclers stated, “[f]or many facilities in the US, the company’s new recyclable tubes are indistinguishable from those made from more common plastics, prompting recyclers to reject them. The old tubes could cause contamination if consumers put them in the recycling bin, so it’s easier for recycling facilities to reject toothpaste tubes across the board.”

In support of its argument, the complaint cites a recent Bloomberg article discussing the accuracy of Colgate’s claims with two solid waste management companies operating in California. (The two companies, Waste Management, Inc. and Republic Services, account for more than 40 percent of recycling services provided to consumers in California and about 25 percent of the recycling services on a national scale.) The companies highlighted that toothpaste tubes “are not in its list of acceptable items” and that there is serious concern about contamination from leftover toothpaste that remains in the tube.

According to the complaint, Colgate is fully aware that its products end up in landfills or are incinerated because recycling facilities do not accept its products. Colgate has even gone so far as to release a video on its website stating as much and explaining that the company is “continu[ing] the work beyond technically recyclable toward acceptance of tubes in recycling centers.” If recycling centers do not accept toothpaste tubes, their recyclability is irrelevant, and labeling and advertising their products as recyclable is false, misleading, and deceptive to consumers and members of the public seeking to make environmentally conscious purchasing decisions.

Plaintiffs seek an injunction on the sale of these products until such time the labeling and advertising language can be modified to remove recyclability language or alternatively to include a qualified claim that accurately states the availability of recycling programs. To be in compliance with the Green Guides’ environmental marketing requirements, a company is only permitted to make unqualified recyclable claims “[w]hen recycling facilities are available to a substantial majority of consumers or communities where the item is sold.” The Guides further clarify a substantial majority to mean at least 60 percent, and that “[w]hen recycling facilities are available to less than a substantial majority of consumers or communities where the item is sold, marketers should qualify all recyclable claims.”

Additionally, Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory and statutory damages.

PFAS Class Action Brought Against Sports Drink Company

/in ,

A consumer class action lawsuit has been filed against Biosteel Sports Nutrition, Inc. in the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the company’s BioSteel Blue Raspberry flavored sports drink contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). Defendant’s products are marketed as healthy sports drinks, using language such as “clean, quality ingredients,” “designed with sustainability in mind,” “no artificial flavors/colors,” and “good for you and the environment.” The product packaging additionally claims that the product is “highly regarded for its premium ingredients and zero sugar formula.”

Plaintiffs claim that based on this language, they believed the product to be a healthy sports drink, but the presence of PFAS directly contradicts Biosteel Sports Nutrition’s marketing claims. The suit alleges violations of the New York General Business Law § 349, et seq., which prohibits deceptive acts and practices in business, violations of New York General Business Law § 350, et seq. prohibiting false advertising, breach of express warranty, fraud, constructive fraud, and unjust enrichment.

On August 4, 2023, the company filed a motion to dismiss, claiming that Plaintiff’s testing of its product was insufficient to demonstrate that PFAS substances are present in its products. The motion claims the testing allegations are “devoid of any details regarding the methodology or sample used.” Additionally, according to Biosteel Sports Nutrition, this information was not within the complaint or the amended complaint.

Better Business Bureau Challenge Results in Clarifying Disclosure in Antimicrobial Toilet Seat Advertising

/in , ,

Business Bureau (BBB) National Programs develops self-regulatory industry programs and resolves disputes on issues including advertising and privacy.  According to BBB National Programs, National Advertising Division (NAD) case decisions “represent the single largest body of advertising law in the country.”

A recent NAD case concerned antimicrobial claims made by Ginsey Industries, Inc. (“Ginsey”) on its Clorox-branded toilet seats.  Bemis Manufacturing Company challenged elements of these claims (though not the product’s antimicrobial efficacy).  During the challenge, Ginsey voluntarily committed to add a disclosure acknowledging that the product does not protect uses against bacteria and remove an “antimicrobial checkmark image inside the Clorox chevron logo.”

NAD additionally recommended that Ginsey modify its website to display the disclosure statement more conspicuously and work with retailers to do the same with their websites.  In response, the company stated that while it disagrees that “further modifications to its online product listings are necessary to protect consumers,” it would comply with NAD’s decision.

Walmart and Reynolds Sued Over Recyclable Plastic Bag Marketing Claim

/in , ,

The State Attorney General of Minnesota has filed a lawsuit against Walmart Inc. and Reynolds Consumer Products Inc. (the owner of the trash bag trademark “Hefty”) for falsely marketing their plastic bags as recyclable. The Complaint alleges violations of Minnesota’s Prevention of Consumer Fraud Protection Act, Deceptive Trade Practices Act, False Statement in Advertising Act, and deceptive environmental marketing claim regulations.

These statutes utilize language explicitly prohibiting the use and dissemination of false, deceptive, or misleading statements. For example, Minnesota’s False Statement in Advertising Act strictly prohibits advertising that contains any material assertion, representation, or statement of fact that is untrue, deceptive, or misleading. Minnesota’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act further states:

“A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when …the person … represents that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have….” (emphasis added).

Defendants, through their product labeling, advertised their products as recyclable, which was false.  In addition, their actions disqualified the recyclable contents of the plastic bags from being recycled. In Minnesota, when recyclable materials or products are placed in non-recyclable bags on the curb, waste management will render the contents of the entire bag unrecyclable, leading both the bag and its contents to end up in landfills.

Additionally, the Complaint alleges deceptive environmental marketing claims by Walmart, citing the Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTCs”) Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (also referred to as the “Green Guides”). The Green Guides state, “it is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is recyclable. A product or package should not be marketed as recyclable unless it can be collected, separated, or otherwise recovered from the waste stream through an established recycling program for reuse or use in manufacturing or assembling another item.” Minnesota recycling facilities cannot process the Hefty brand plastic trash bags labeled as recyclable); in fact, they can cause machine malfunctions and even serious damage.

The Complaint asked the court to order a stop on the sale of these products as marketed. Further, the Complaint requests that the court order the defendants to fund a program to educate Minnesota residents about recyclable materials.

This is not the only lawsuit related to Hefty’s recycling bags. Last year Connecticut’s Attorney General filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer, Reynolds, alleging the company has falsely and deceptively marketed the same Hefty recycling at issue in the Minnesota case. The Complaint states that Reynolds has marketed and sold these bags “despite full knowledge that their bags were incompatible with recycling facilities in Connecticut.” This case is still being litigated.

Delta Airlines Sued for Greenwashing Making Carbon Neutral Claims

/in

Delta Airlines is the latest company to face a greenwashing class action lawsuit. The complaint alleges that the company has misled its customers by making carbon neutral claims. According to the complaint, Delta advertises that it has been carbon-neutral since March 2020; however, because Delta is using carbon offsets to achieve this, the complaint alleges that the company is making representations that are “manifestly and provably false.”

While on paper the purchase of carbon offsets should account for Delta’s global emissions, the complaint claims that issues exist with the accuracy and reliability of offsets issued by a voluntary carbon offset market. The complaint alleges that the voluntary offset market is comprised of “a loose arrangement of companies and NGOs that facilitate investment in green projects such as renewable energy and prevention of deforestation,” but that these carbon neutral projects have foundational issues such as inaccurate and speculative accounting of true carbon offsets, and the fact that many of these projects were scheduled and would have occurred regardless of participating carbon offset programs. Therefore, Delta’s claims “hinge[] on an underlying set of representations” that Plaintiff asserts are “manifestly and provably false.”

The complaint purports that “both scientists and government regulators have specifically identified [Delta] as one of many companies who have grossly misstated the actual carbon reduction produced by their carbon offset portfolio.” If these allegations are true, this would mean that, in reality, Delta is not fully carbon neutral, as the offsets it purchases are not accurately measured.

The Plaintiff alleges the carbon neutral claims are false and misleading and that consumers would not have purchased tickets on Delta flights at all or would have paid substantially less for them had they been aware the claims were false. This assertion is consistent with the increasing trend of consumers paying market premiums for greener products and services, i.e., products and services that have a smaller carbon footprint than competitors or no carbon footprint.

This complaint was brought pursuant to California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and California’s False Advertising, Business and Professions Code, which prohibits improper representations regarding the sale and source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of the services sold.

Keurig Reaches $10M Settlement in False Advertising “Recyclable” Class Action

/in

Keurig has reached a $10 million settlement in a class action lawsuit. The case filed in 2018, Smith v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., alleged the company falsely advertised its K-Cups as recyclable. The lawsuit claimed violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the fraudulent, unlawful, and unfair prongs of the California Unfair Competition Law, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.

The Complaint states that Keurig marketed the K-Cups in an untruthful or deceptive manner, misleading the “reasonable consumer” to believe the product was recyclable. Members of the Class claim that they relied upon Keurig’s false representations and followed Keurig’s recycling instructions, and, had they known the K-Cups were not recyclable, they would not have purchased them or paid the amount they did. Keurig presented the K-Cups as recyclable, yet there were unmentioned caveats that prevented the product from being recycled even when customers placed the products into the recycling stream, including:

  • Many communities do not accept the plastic used in K-Cups (polypropylene), into recycling.
  • Keurig’s instructions prevent recyclability by advising users that they do not need to remove the K-Cup’s paper filter, although not doing so makes the product ineligible for recycling.
  • The K-Cup design hinders recyclability because the foil lids are difficult to remove, but without doing so, the product is ineligible for recycling.

Consumers who purchased Keurig’s K-Cups between June 8, 2016, and August 8, 2022, are eligible for an award of up to $36. If any money remains in the settlement fund after these payments, 75 percent of the remaining funds will be given to Ocean Conservancy, an environmental non-profit organization that formulates ocean policy and the national and state levels; the remaining 25 percent will go to Consumer Reports, a non-profit organization that conducts independent product testing and consumer advocacy.