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