Court Applies FTC Green Guides in Igloo Marketing Lawsuit

/in , ,

A proposed class action challenging recycled content, biodegradability, and “Made in USA” claims on Igloo-brand cooler products can proceed, the Eastern District of New York ruled on February 2, 2026.

The case concerns unqualified recycled content and biodegradability claims on the front labels of various Igloo products.  According to the court, these include “Made From Biodegradable Materials” and “Made With Post Consumer Recycled Plastic Material,” which is often accompanied by the chasing arrows recycling symbol.  Igloo also advertises certain products with unqualified “Made in USA” representations.  The plaintiffs, a New York consumer and a Texas consumer, allege that these claims are deceptive and that they would not have purchased the products at the stated price had they known the products lacked these qualities.

The court’s analysis centered on the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) Green Guides, which provide guidance on environmental marketing claims.  Although the guidance does not create independent causes of action, the court emphasized that alleged noncompliance can support deception claims because the Green Guides “illustrate how unqualified representations of a product’s qualities may plausibly deceive and mislead a reasonable consumer.”

With respect to Igloo’s unqualified biodegradability claims, the court observed that the Green Guides caution against such claims for products disposed of in landfills, where conditions do not allow for prompt degradation.  Combined with studies cited by the plaintiffs, this guidance made the plaintiffs’ deception theory plausible at the pleading stage.

Similarly, the court found the company’s recycling content claims plausibly deceptive because they did not disclose that the products were not entirely made of recycled content—despite the Green Guides’ instruction that marketers qualify claims for products containing both recycled and non-recycled content.

The court also held that, at this stage, the plaintiffs had standing to challenge representations made about products they did not purchase.  It noted, however, that Igloo may renew its standing arguments at class certification.

“Made in USA” and Other Claims

The plaintiffs’ “Made in USA” claims also survived dismissal, despite falling outside the scope of the Green Guides.  The court held that the allegations—that only a “minimal amount” of certain materials used by Igloo are produced domestically—were enough at the pleading stage, even without concrete proof that the contested products contain foreign materials.

“Plaintiffs have alleged that the relevant products contain ‘materials’ and ‘full components’ sourced and imported from other countries,” the court wrote.  “This is sufficient to allege that the Made in USA Representations were materially misleading”

Two claims did not survive. The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ breach of express warranty claim for failure to provide pre-suit notice, and dismissed the unjust enrichment claim as duplicative of the statutory and common law claims.

The court repeatedly declined to rule or provide commentary on the merits.  Quoting caselaw, the court emphasized that “‘[a] federal trial judge, with a background and experience unlike that of most consumers, is hardly in a position to declare’ that reasonable consumers would not be misled.”

The case is Lieber v. Igloo Products Corp., No. 25-cv-488 (E.D.N.Y.), filed January 28, 2025.

NAD Finds Issues with Bashlin “Made in USA” Claims

/in

A manufacturer of lineworker equipment will modify or discontinue certain “Made in USA” claims following recommendations by the Better Business Bureau (BBB) National Programs’ National Advertising Division (NAD), the industry self-regulatory body announced on January 28, 2026.

The challenge, brought by a competitor against Bashlin Industries, Inc., concerned multiple unqualified “Made in USA” claims appearing on products and webpages.

NAD concluded that a claim on a climber product should be modified because consumers could not determine which components “contain more than a negligible amount of content of undetermined origin.”  NAD also found that claims on third-party manufactured bucket knuckle and hat liner products lacked substantiation.  Bashlin’s role as a reseller, NAD notes, does not relieve it of responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of origin claims.

Referencing the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) “all or virtually all” standard, NAD added that an American-made plastic bucket bottom could not be labeled “Made in USA” because consumers could reasonably interpret the claim to apply to the entire bucket.

NAD further recommended that Bashlin stop using an American flag logo and other patriotic imagery unless those elements are “far removed” from product-specific information.  It also determined that “Made in USA” claims in Bashline safety videos constitute national advertising due to their broad distribution and promotional purpose, despite on-screen disclosures.

In its advertiser statement, Bashlin disagreed with NAD’s conclusions but stated that it “supports the self-regulatory process and will seek to comply with its recommendations.”

More on BBB National Programs can be found here.

Third Circuit Affirms Lanham Act Liability for False “Made in USA” Claims

/in

On December 10, 2025, the Third Circuit affirmed a New Jersey district court’s finding that Albion Engineering Co. violated the Lanham Act by making false and misleading “Made in the USA” claims in connection with certain caulking guns, as well as the entry of a permanent injunction and an award of disgorgement.

Competitor Newborn Bros. Co., Inc. filed suit in 2012, alleging that Albion partially manufactured certain caulking guns overseas while making US-origin claims.  Albion printed statements such as “USA Manufacturer and Designer” and “Made in USA” on some imported products and advertised that all of its products were “designed and manufactured in the USA” and “Made in America.”  Newborn, however, also made potentially problematic US-origin representations in connection with its own imported caulking guns.

After 30 days of trial testimony spanning seven years, the district court held Albion liable for false advertising under the Lanham Act, entered a permanent injunction, and awarded Newborn more than $2 million in disgorgement, reducing the award under the unclean hands doctrine based on Newborn’s own conduct.  Both parties appealed.  The Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings in all respects.

False Advertising and Permanent Injunction

Albion challenged several aspects of the false advertising holding, arguing that Newborn failed to present consumer survey evidence demonstrating deception and lacked evidence that any deception was material.  The Third Circuit rejected these arguments, holding that testimony and expert evidence may establish deception and materiality without a consumer survey.  The court also affirmed the finding that Newborn suffered injury in the form of diverted sales.

Albion additionally challenged the permanent injunction, which ordered Albion to send letters to recent distributors, request returns of mislabeled products, display notice of the litigation, and provide detailed country-of-origin information until it receives Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) guidance.  Even if Albion’s current practices are compliant with the Lanham Act, the district court’s conclusion that old products and marketing materials was sufficient to warrant a permanent injunction, the panel held.

The Third Circuit likewise upheld the district court’s mandate regarding country-of-origin disclosures. Albion had previously sought CBP guidance on an adjacent issue and was informed that the country of origin would not be the United States, but it did not seek a subsequent clarifying ruling.  “On this record, we cannot conclude that the District Court abused its discretion,” the panel stated.

Unclean Hands

Newborn, on the other hand, principally challenged the district court’s application of the unclean hands doctrine, which decreased the disgorgement award.  The lower court focused on Newborn’s use of a “Newborn U.S.A.” trademark on caulking-gun advertisements without reference to its US warehouse facilities to justify its application.  Newborn also used a logo incorporating its name within an outline of the United States and listed US-based offices and warehouses without disclosing that its caulking guns were manufactured overseas.

While these practices may not necessarily have caused consumer confusion or injury, they are sufficiently similar to Albion’s violations and “transgress[ed] equitable standards of conduct,” the court held.  Accordingly, the panel found that the reduction of Newborn’s recovery fell within the district court’s discretion.

The court also rejected Newborn’s challenge to Albion’s expert witness, who testified that repeat purchasers of Albion products would be aware of their overseas origin.  The panel held that this opinion fell within the expertise of the economist, who held a Ph.D.

The case is Newborn Bros. Co., Inc. v. Albion Engineering Co., Nos. 24-1548 & 24-3046 (3rd Cir.), filed Nov. 4, 2024.

Forklift Companies Indicted for False “Made in USA” Claims and Tariff Evasion

/in ,

A federal grand jury in Colorado has returned an indictment against Endless Sales Inc., Octane Forklifts, Inc., and three company executives that sold forklifts to government agencies, charging the defendants with making fraudulent “Made in America” claims and evading tariffs.

According to the August 21, 2025, indictment, the defendants added Made in USA labels to the forklifts, forged certificates of origin, and told federal contracting officers that they were Buy American Act- and Trade Agreements Act-compliant, despite the fact that the forklifts were imported from China.  Employees and third parties were allegedly ordered to “de-Chinese” the forklifts by removing “decals, stickers, and inspections tags” showing their Chinese origin.

The indictment additionally alleges that the defendants misrepresented the value of their imports to US Customs and Border Protection, “thereby depriving the United States of over $1 million in applicable tariffs, duties, and fees.”  The imports allegedly took place from about October 2018 to June 2024.

Specific charges include conspiracy to commit wire fraud, wire fraud, making materially false statements, and conspiracy to enter goods into the United States by means of false statements.  Prosecutors seek forfeiture of all monetary gains related to the charges.  If convicted on the wire fraud charges, the company executives face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, with lesser sentences possible for the other charges.

More information is available in a Department of Justice press release.

Verdant Law to Lead ACA Webinar on FTC’s “Made in the USA” Enforcement

/in , ,

Verdant Law is pleased to announce that Phil Moffat and Irene Hantman will lead an American Coatings Association (ACA) webinar on the FTC’s renewed focus on “Made in the USA” claims.  The session will be held on September 25, 2025, from 1–2pm ET.

Although the current Trump administration has generally adopted a deregulatory stance, “Made in the USA” claims have been a notable exception.  This past July, the FTC declared “Made in the USA Month” and announced stepped-up enforcement, including warning letters to major retailers such as Amazon and Walmart.

This webinar will provide insight to help attendees align marketing strategies with legal standards, avoid enforcement risks, and ensure “Made in the USA” claims are both effective and compliant.

Attendance is limited to, but free for, ACA members.  Register here.

“Made in the USA” Claims Face Renewed FTC Scrutiny

/in , ,

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has recently intensified enforcement of “Made in the USA” claims, signaling that such marketing representations remain a priority even amid broader deregulatory themes in the second Trump administration.   In July, the commission designated “Made in the USA Month” and used the occasion to highlight the legal standards companies must meet when promoting domestic manufacturing.

“It is important to protect Americans from deceptive advertising, and also important because it provides consumers with confidence that when they buy something that says ‘Made in the USA’ they are actually supporting American workers, American manufacturers, and American communities,” FTC’s July 1 press release stated.

Recent Enforcement Actions

Just days later, on July 8, FTC announced that it had issued warning letters to four manufacturers—Americana Liberty, Oak Street Manufacturing, Pro Sports Group, and USA Big Mountain Paper—for potentially deceptive US-origin claims.  “Companies that falsely claim their products are ‘Made in the USA’ can expect to hear from the FTC,” the commission warned.

FTC also notified Amazon and Walmart, urging them to strengthen oversight of “Made in the USA” representations made by third-party sellers on their platforms.

Legal Framework and Risk

Under the FTC’s 2021 Made in USA Labeling Rule, marketers must ensure that any unqualified “Made in USA” claim is backed by evidence showing that the product is “all or virtually all” made in the United States.  That requirement extends beyond final assembly—virtually all components must be US-sourced, and all significant processing must occur domestically.  FTC can seek civil penalties exceeding $50,000 per violation.

What Businesses Should Do Now

Companies making US-origin claims—whether on packaging, advertising, or e-commerce listings—should immediately assess whether those claims are substantiated and appropriately qualified.  Supply chain documentation, legal review of marketing copy, and platform-level seller oversight are all critical steps.  FTC’s recent actions make clear that “Made in USA” claims are no longer low-risk, especially for businesses operating under public scrutiny or national branding strategies.

For support with compliance reviews, developing lawful origin claims, or navigating FTC correspondence, our team is here to help.

Clothing Accessories Companies Penalized for False Made in USA Claims

/in , ,

In August 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) finalized a complaint and order against Chaucer Accessories, Inc. and two other companies owned by Thomas P. Bates for falsely labeling belts, shoes, and other products as “Made in the USA” (MUSA). The order includes a monetary judgment of $191,481.

According to FTC, the New England-based companies regularly claimed that certain products were MUSA, even though these products were wholly or largely imported. In other instances, the companies claimed that certain belts were “Made in the USA from Global Materials,” when in reality, the companies merely affixed buckles to imported belt straps. FTC alleged three violations of section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act: one violation for the false MUSA claims, one violation for the false MUSA from global materials claim, and one violation for distributing the false claims to resellers for their use in the resale of the products.

In addition to the monetary judgment, the order places restrictions on the companies and Bates on making unqualified MUSA claims, prohibits them from misrepresenting their products’ country of origin or providing others the means to make misrepresentations and imposes requirements for qualified MUSA claims and assembly claims. The companies must also notify affected customers of the violations and provide FTC with sufficient customer information for the Commission to administer customer redress.

FTC Finalizes Made in the USA Enforcement Action Against Motocross Parts Maker

/in ,

Last month the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) took enforcement action against an ATV and motocross parts maker, Cycra, and one of its officers for falsely claiming the company’s products were manufactured in the United States. FTC’s complaint alleged Cycra made false or misleading Made in the United States (MUSA”) advertising claims in violation of the Made in USA Labeling Rule. The rule strictly prohibits marketers from labeling products as “Made in USA” unless (1) the final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States; (2) all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States; and (3) all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States.

Between 2019 and 2022, Cycra advertised and sold motocross and ATV products, which it claimed were all or virtually all made in the United States. More than 150 of the company’s products displayed labels containing the wording “Made in the USA” (what FTC refers to as a “MUSA Label”) along with images of American flags. Additionally, the company’s website and social media made numerous Made in the USA claims, including that products were “[p]roudly designed, developed and manufactured in Lexington, North Carolina” and “[p]roudly made in the USA.”

Cyrca products were, in actuality, not being produced in the United States. Cycra imported at least 30 shipments of parts or accessories from Asia and Europe and additionally imported shipments of finished products already packaged, some already including MUSA Labels.

FTC’s order details a variety of requirements limiting the claims Cycra can make regarding its products going forward. First, there will be restrictions on unqualified claims; the company will be prohibited from making unqualified MUSA claims for any product unless it can show that the final assembly and all significant processing of the product take place in the United States and that all, or virtually all, ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States. Additionally, FTC has ordered requirements for qualified claims, requiring that for any qualified MUSA claims, there must be clear disclosure about the extent to which the product contains foreign parts, ingredients, components, or processing. Lastly, FTC has ordered requirements for assembly claims which require the company to ensure that when a product is claiming to be assembled in the United States, its principal assembly takes place in the United States and that those assembly operations are substantial.

The order also included a monetary judgment of $872,577. The monetary judgment has been partially suspended based on the company’s inability to pay.  However,  the company has been required to pay $221,358.66 of the penalty.