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.

EPA Moves to Dismiss Novel TSCA CBI Challenge as Untimely

/in , ,

A lawsuit seeking to prevent EPA from disclosing chemical identity information under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was not timely filed, the agency told the District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on November 24, 2025.

Plaintiff Burgess Pigment Co. filed suit after receiving a 2025 notification from EPA stating that the agency would soon make a specific chemical identity publicly available.  However, EPA argues that Burgess was actually required to file years earlier, when the agency first informed the company that the chemical identity was not entitled to confidential business information (CBI) protection.

At issue is TSCA section 14(g), which provides claimants 30 days to appeal a CBI denial after receiving notice from EPA.  According to the agency, that notice was provided in 2020, when EPA issued an initial determination denying CBI claims Burgess had made in its 2016 Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) submission.  The 2025 notification merely restated EPA’s earlier conclusion that the information was ineligible for CBI protection, the agency says.

“Allowing Burgess to challenge EPA’s determination five years later would not only undermine the statutory scheme contemplated by Congress, but it would also prove administratively unworkable,” EPA states in a memo accompanying its motion to dismiss.  “Such a rule would permit companies to restart the ‘30-day clock’ simply by asking EPA to protect the confidentiality of information that EPA has already decided is not entitled to confidentiality.”

According to EPA, after the initial determination, Burgess and EPA entered into a toll agreement to extend the 30-day deadline while the parties discussed the CBI denial.  EPA ultimately affirmed its determination in January 2022, which, the agency says, triggered a new 30-day appeal period ending in February 2022.

The 2025 notification was issued in response to Burgess’s 2024 CDR submission, which again asserted that the chemical identity was CBI.  EPA notes that it sent a similar notification in 2023 in response to Burgess’s 2020 CDR submission.

Nondiscretionary Duty

Even if the suit had been timely filed, EPA contends that there is no basis for Burgess’s claim.

The CBI denial resulted from Burgess’s failure to timely respond to the statutorily mandated 2017 Inventory Reset Rule, which required manufacturers to take affirmative steps to maintain existing CBI claims.  Because Burgess did not do so, EPA says that TSCA required EPA to make the chemical identity public.

“EPA had no discretion to choose not to move the chemical to the nonconfidential portion of the list,” the memo reads.  “EPA acted in accordance with its statutory directive, and it would have been inconsistent with TSCA for EPA to decline to move the chemical.”

Although Burgess later submitted materials intended to support confidentiality, EPA contends those efforts came too late.  “[W]hen Burgess belatedly attempted to seek confidentiality in 2020 and beyond, there was no longer a confidentiality claim because EPA had already determined the information was not confidential,” the agency says.

Burgess has argued that EPA continues to treat the chemical identity as confidential despite the notification letters.  EPA disputes that characterization, noting that although the chemical identity has not yet appeared on the nonconfidential TSCA Inventory, it is not being treated as CBI.

“If, for instance, EPA received a [Freedom of Information Act] request for the information in the years since the claim was denied, EPA would provide the chemical identity in response to that request,” the memo states.

APA Claims

EPA also argues that Burgess has no recourse outside of TSCA section 14.  The agency contends that Burgess’s Administrative Procedure Act (APA) arguments fail because the APA limits judicial review to “final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in court.”

“Because Burgess had an adequate remedy under TSCA, it may not pursue its claim under the APA,” the memo states.

The case is Burgess Pigment Co. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 5:25-cv-00309 (M.D. Ga.), filed July 18, 2025.  More information on the case is available in a previous post.  Burgess’s response to the motion to dismiss is due December 30, 2025.

Federal Legislation Introduced to Create PFAS Cause of Action

/in ,

On December 11, 2025, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Representative Madeleine Dean (D-PA-4) introduced the PFAS Accountability Act of 2025 (S.3460/H.R.6626).  The legislation would establish a federal cause of action and allow courts to award medical monitoring for persons exposed to PFAS.

In a press release announcing the bill, Senator Gillibrand stated: “For years, companies have knowingly manufactured toxic, carcinogenic chemicals that have devastated families and communities.  Those companies must be held accountable for their actions.”

Versions of the PFAS Accountability Act have been introduced in every Congress since 2018.  The legislation has never passed either chamber, however.

Cause of Action

If enacted, the PFAS Accountability Act would add a new section to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) titled “Individuals Exposed to Perfluoroalkyl And Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.”  The amendment would allow individuals who have been “significantly exposed to PFAS,” or have “reasonable grounds” to suspect significant exposure, to bring suit individually or as a class in any district court.

Claims could be brought against any person that:

  1. Engaged in any portion of a manufacturing process that created the PFAS to which the individual was significantly exposed; and
  2. Foresaw, or reasonably should have foreseen, that the creation or use of PFAS would result in human exposure.

The bill establishes rebuttable presumptions of “significant exposure.” An individual would be presumed to have been significantly exposed if:

  • The PFAS at issue was released into one or more areas where the individual would have been exposed for a cumulative period of at least one year; or
  • The individual submits testing results demonstrating the presence of the PFAS in their body.

If plaintiffs do not submit test results, defendants could rebut the presumption of significant exposure by offering test results conducted by an independent testing provider.

Medical Monitoring

The legislation would authorize courts to award medical monitoring for qualifying claimants if:

  1. The individual’s significant PFAS exposure resulted in an increased risk of developing disease;
  2. That increased risk provides a reasonable basis for additional or more frequent medical examinations; and
  3. Those examinations are effective in detecting a disease associated with PFAS exposure.

Where insufficient toxicological data exists to determine whether exposure resulted in an increased risk of disease, courts “may lower the standard for scientific proof” until such data exists.  Courts would also have authority to order studies to assess whether an increased risk of disease occurred.

Definition of PFAS

Notably, the bill defines PFAS as “a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance with at least 1 fully fluorinated carbon atom,” which is significantly broader than the definition used by EPA in the TSCA section 8(a)(7) PFAS reporting rule and the 2024 significant new use rule (SNUR) for inactive PFAS.

More information on the PFAS Accountability Act of 2025 can be found here.

Connecticut Releases Approved PFAS Label Language

/in , ,

On December 1, 2025, the commissioner of Connecticut’s Department of Energy & Environmental Protection (DEEP) issued an order approving the following phrases that satisfy the state’s PFAS labeling requirements.  The approved language includes:

  • Contains PFAS
  • Made with PFAS
  • Made with PFAS chemicals
  • Made with intentionally added PFAS
  • This product contains PFAS chemicals

Manufacturers or producers can petition DEEP to approve other words or symbols.  Petitions must be submitted via email to DEEP.PFASInProduct@ct.gov.  Emails should include the proposed words or symbols, as well as the petitioner’s name, title, email address, and telephone number.

The order states that DEEP will publish and maintain an updated list of all approved labeling language on its PFAS in Products website.

Labeling Requirements

Beginning July 1, 2026, no person may sell or distribute certain products in Connecticut that contain intentionally-added PFAS unless the products include the required labeling disclosures.  A complete list of covered product categories can be found in a previous post.

Labeling is the responsibility of the manufacturer unless the wholesaler or retailer agrees to accept responsibility for their application.  Labels must:

  • Be clearly visible prior to sale
  • Use words or symbols approved by DEEP
  • Be sufficiently durable to remain legible for the product’s useful life

If a covered product is incorporated as a component of another product, the final product containing the component must be labeled.

Connecticut is not the only state that will soon impose PFAS labeling requirements.  Effective January 1, 2027, New Mexico will require labeling on all products containing intentionally added PFAS that are sold or distributed in the state.  More information on New Mexico’s requirements can be found here.

Final PFAS Reporting Requirements Set in Minnesota

/in ,

On December 8, 2025, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) adopted a final rule governing manufacturer reporting on intentionally added PFAS in products, ahead of the July 1, 2026 deadline for initial submissions.  The rule outlines what manufacturers must report, how reports must be submitted, and the conditions under which waivers or extensions may be granted.

Initial Reporting Requirements

A manufacturer or group of manufacturers of new products sold or distributed in the Minnesota that contain intentionally added PFAS must submit an initial report to MPCA by July 1, 2026.  Each report must include:

  • A description of the product or a description of the category or type of product.
  • The PFAS chemicals used in the product or its components.
  • The concentration range of PFAS chemicals in a product or components of a product made up of homogenous material.
  • The function that each PFAS chemical provides to the product or its components.
  • Manufacturer information.
  • Contact information.

A flat $800 fee must accompany each initial report. Manufacturers may request trade secret protection for chemical identities, identifying numbers, and certain supply-chain information.  On its website, MPCA says that reported information that is not trade secret will be disclosed to the public.

All manufacturers must​ assume responsibility to report unless manufacturers in the same supply chain enter into an​ agreement to establish their respective reporting responsibilities.  To meet due diligence requirements, manufacturers must “request detailed disclosure of information…from their supply​ chain until all required information is known.”  Manufacturers must maintain documentation of all communication with other manufacturers regarding PFAS reporting compliance and reporting responsibility agreements and provide it to MPCA upon request.

MPCA may grant waiver requests for all or part of the required information upon request if substantially equivalent information is publicly available.  Extension requests must be submitted at least 30 days before the deadline.  Reports will be filed through MPCA’s PFAS Reporting and Information System for Manufacturers (PRISM), which MPCA plans to soft-launch to selected manufacturers this month and release in full in January 2026.

Changes from the Proposal

After two public comment periods and an administrative law judge’s review, the final rule incorporates several adjustments, including:

  • Clarifying that manufacturers must submit a single initial report, not individual reports for each product or component.
  • Reducing the reporting fee from $1,000 to $800, and clarifying that only one fee be submitted per initial report, rather than a fee for each reported product or component.
  • Removing language that would have allowed MPCA to deny a waiver request based on the burden of accessing publicly available information.
  • Limiting manufacturers to one extension of the reporting deadline.

The final rule also makes several key changes to subsequent reporting requirements after the initial report, including:

  • Requiring that manufacturers of new products containing intentionally added PFAS report by February 1 of the following year, rather than prior to sale or distribution in the state.
  • Removing the requirement that manufacturers annually recertify their report. Now, manufacturers must only submit an update by February 1 of the following year if a significant change was made to a product, new product information was provided to a manufacturer, or a new product was sold or distributed in the state during the previous year.
  • Removing the option for manufacturers to voluntarily update their report whenever a PFAS is reduced or eliminated from a product or component.
  • Eliminating the fee for annual updates.

The Minnesota Register notice for the rule, including MPCA’s explanation of changes, can be found here.

MPCA is in the process of developing a separate rule establishing a process for currently unavoidable use (CUU) determinations.  More information on Minnesota’s PFAS in products program can be found on the agency’s website.

FDA Withdraws Asbestos Testing Proposal for Talc Cosmetics

/in , , , ,

On November 28, 2025, in response to adverse comments, FDA published a notice announcing its withdrawal a December 2024 proposed rule that would have required manufacturers of talc-containing cosmetic products to test for asbestos.

The rulemaking is required by section 3505 of the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA), which directs FDA to “promulgate proposed regulations to establish and require standardized testing methods for detecting and identifying asbestos in talc-containing cosmetic products.”  FDA’s notice makes clear that the agency plans to issue a new proposed rule in the future.

FDA cites “Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) priorities to ensure safe additives in the American food and drug supply, the highly scientific and technical issues addressed in public comments the Agency has received, and the complexity of asbestos testing and legal considerations under the Administrative Procedure Act” as good cause for the withdrawal.

The concern underlying the rulemaking stems from the geological relationship between asbestos and talc.  According to FDA, asbestos is found in the same rock types that host talc deposits, which sometimes results in the presence of asbestos in talc cosmetics.

Although the testing requirements will not take effect, the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) continues to prohibit the sale of adulterated cosmetics, including those that contain “any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render [the product] injurious to users.”  FDA has previously taken action in this area: testing in 2019 led to recalls of talc cosmetics potentially containing asbestos, while testing in 2023 did not detect asbestos in any of fifty sampled products.

December 2024 Proposal

The December 2024 proposed rule would have required manufacturers to test talc-containing cosmetic products—or the talc ingredient before use—and maintain records demonstrating compliance. Manufacturers would have needed to test a representative sample of each batch or lot using both:

  1. Polarized Light Microscopy (PLM) (with dispersion staining).
  2. Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM)/Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS)/Selected Area Electron Diffraction (SAED).

Noncompliance would have rendered a cosmetic adulterated.  A talc cosmetic product would also have been deemed adulterated if any asbestos was present—even if only a single fiber was detected.

Issues Raised by Commenters

In the withdrawal notice, FDA notes several provisions of the proposed rule that were contested by commenters, including:

  • The proposed definition of “asbestos,” which differed from definitions used by OSHA, the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA), and EPA.
  • Whether FDA has statutory authority to add a specific adulteration provision relating to talc testing or to deem any detectable asbestos as adulterating a cosmetic.
  • FDA’s inclusion of cosmetic products that are also drugs within the scope of the rule.

In addition, commenters raised concerns about the proposed test methods, although FDA did not address these in the withdrawal notice.  For example, the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) questioned whether TEM was superior to other test methods, arguing that it might yield more false positives.  USP also asserted that a single-fiber threshold for positive samples diverges from generally accepted TEM fiber counting procedures and would pose challenges for reproducibility.

More information on talc and asbestos can be found on FDA’s website.

Prop 65 Updates: New MFH Listing and BPS Developmental Toxicity Endpoint Added

/in , ,

On December 5, 2025, California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) announced the addition of N-methyl-N-formylhydrazine (MFH) to the Prop 65 list as a carcinogen.  On the same day, OEHHA also announced that it is adding the developmental toxicity endpoint to the listing for bisphenol S (BPS).  Both listings took effect December 8, 2025.

MFH (CAS RN 758-17-8)

MFH was added to the Prop 65 list via the “state’s qualified experts” mechanism following a November 18, 2025, determination by the Carcinogen Identification Committee (CIC).  The warning requirement for significant exposures to MFH will take effect one year after its listing, on December 8, 2026.

According to an August 2025 OEHHA document describing the evidence of MFH’s carcinogenicity, MFH is naturally occurring in edible Gyromitra mushrooms.  MFH is also used in the production of marbofloxacin (an antibacterial agent used in veterinary medicine) and for research purposes.

BPS (CAS RN 80-09-1)

The developmental toxicity endpoint for BPS was also added via the state’s qualified experts mechanism after an October 9, 2025, meeting by the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicant Identification Committee (DRTIC).  OEHHA’s evidence document for BPS’s developmental toxicity can be found here.

BPS has been included on the Prop 65 list since December 2023, when it was listed for female reproductive toxicity.  The warning requirement for significant exposures to BPS took effect in 2024.  In January 2025, OEHHA also added the male reproductive toxicity endpoint for BPS.

OEHHA has not established a maximum allowable dose level (MADL) safe harbor for BPS (under which a warning is not required).  As of the date of this post, private enforcers have sent over nine hundred 60-day notices to companies, alleging that customers may be receiving significant exposures to BPS from receipt papers without warning.

In recent out-of-court settlements, including an October 2025 settlement with Build-A-Bear Workshop, Inc., companies have committed to using “BPS free” thermal receipt paper.  In these settlements, BPS free is typically defined as less than 100 or 200 parts per million BPS and no intentionally added BPS, with some agreements also requiring no intentionally added bisphenol A (BPA).

The complete, updated Prop 65 list can be found here.

Conopco Can’t Shake “X% Naturally Derived” Mislabeling Suit

/in

A proposed class action challenging “X% Naturally Derived” label claims on Conopco’s “Love Beauty & Planet,” “Dove Men + Care,” and “babyDove” brand shampoos, conditioners, and other bath products can move forward, the California Northern District Court ruled on November 26, 2025.

The suit alleges that the provided percentages, which vary by product, mislead customers because they encompass synthetic industrial chemicals.  According to the plaintiffs, the percentages are calculated using a complex, proprietary, and arbitrary formula developed by the British Standards Institute (BSI) known as ISO 16128, which is not intended for marketing purposes.

In its order, the court concluded that consumers could plausibly read “naturally derived” to mean “non-synthetic.”  Although Conopco pointed to clarifying information on the products’ back labels, the court ruled that it was not necessary to consider the back labels because the statement on the front was plausibly unambiguous.  If consumers understand naturally derived as non-synthetic, “the back-label definition is essentially ‘fine print’ that undercuts the statements on the front labels,” the order states.

The court also held that the plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficiently detailed to survive dismissal, despite their reliance on allegations based on information and belief.

Dismissed Claims

Other claims were dismissed without prejudice, including the plaintiffs’ argument that Conopco’s omission of a definition of naturally derived on the front label could serve as a separate basis for its false advertising claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

The court held that this omission theory was insufficiently pled because it was not set forth in the complaint.  Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to explain why the alleged omission “‘relates to an unreasonable safety hazard’ or is ‘material’ and ‘central to the product’s function,’” the order states.

The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims.  Under California’s economic loss rule, those torts require that the plaintiffs allege losses in addition to economic loss, and they have not done so, the court held.

The case is Kent v. Conopco, Inc., No. 25-cv-03660 (N.D. Cal.), filed Apr. 25, 2025.  Plaintiffs have until January 7, 2026, to file an amended complaint.

SBA Calls for Federal Scrutiny of State EPR Laws

/in , ,

In comments submitted October 30, 2025, the Small Business Administration’s (SBA’s) Office of Advocacy is calling for the federal government to take action against state extended producer responsibility (EPR) programs “as barriers to interstate commerce.”

SBA’s comments are part of a larger document submitted in response to an August 2025 Department of Justice (DOJ) request for information on state laws that may adversely affect the national economy.  The agency highlights EPR programs’ fees and complexity, which SBA argues disproportionately burden small businesses.

Oregon’s EPR Program

SBA directs much of its criticism on Oregon’s EPR program for packaging, paper, and serviceware, which it describes as especially burdensome.

The law’s broad definition of “producers,” which includes wholesalers and distributors, affects businesses “who have no control over packaging design,” SBA writes.  In addition, while many state EPR laws require producers to join a producer responsibility organization (PRO) that collects fees and administers the program, SBA contends that Oregon’s PRO structure is monopolistic.

“Unlike traditional EPR programs that target specific products with transparent fees, Oregon’s system delegates vast regulatory authority to a single private entity, the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), which operates with a confidential fee methodology and minimal oversight,” the comments state.

SBA’s recommendations extend beyond Oregon, however.  The agency advocates for EPR laws to be struck down, calls for a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigation into whether PRO fees violate federal antitrust laws, and urges greater fee transparency and state oversight.

“Most importantly, other states should avoid Oregon’s model of delegating broad regulatory power to private monopolistic entities without adequate procedural protections,” SBA writes.  “Future EPR legislation should maintain direct state oversight, provide competitive alternatives to single PROs, and ensure that compliance costs are proportionate to businesses’ actual control over packaging decisions and ability to bear regulatory burdens.”

Addressing State Inconsistencies

Other commenters echoed concerns about the economic impacts of EPR laws, emphasizing inconsistencies among state programs.  The American Chemistry Council (ACC), the American Institute for Packaging and the Environment (AMERIPEN), and the National Restaurant Association all cited conflicting definitions, requirements, and program structures as drivers of cost and compliance challenges.

Notably, in its September 15 comments, ACC suggested that a federal EPR program may be the solution to these difficulties.  “EPA could establish a federal framework that promotes a common approach to EPR and recycling,” ACC stated.  “Setting common definitions, metrics, and data collection standards, could support compliance and stimulate the domestic economy.”

ACC also urged federal preemption of other state chemical restrictions, including PFAS laws and California’s Proposition 65.

The docket for DOJ’s request for information is available here.

BBB Finds Bamboo Tissue Maker’s Environmental Claims Lack Support

/in

Plant Paper Inc. will modify or discontinue certain green marketing claims on its bamboo toilet and facial tissues following recommendations from the Better Business Bureau (BBB) National Programs’ National Advertising Division (NAD), according to a decision summary posted November 3, 2025.

On its website and social media, Plant Paper claimed its bamboo products were superior to conventional tissues because they contain no toxic chemicals and are better for the environment.  These claims were challenged by the American Forest & Paper Association, and NAD concluded that Plant Paper lacked sufficient evidence that competitor products were worse for human health and the environment.

For example, although Plant Paper presented test data showing its products contain no bleach, PFAS, or formaldehyde—and cited studies showing that conventional paper can contain formaldehyde and PFAS—it did not provide “reliable, product-specific data demonstrating that most or all conventional tissue brands contain” these substances, the decision summary states.

Similarly, while Plant Paper had evidence of bamboo harvesting’s environmental advantages, such as lower carbon impacts, NAD determined such evidence was “not a good fit” to substantiate its claims that conventional tissue manufacturing harms the environment.

As a result, NAD recommended that Plant Paper modify its claims to avoid implying that conventional tissues contain intentionally added toxic chemicals, are worse for human health, or are more environmentally destructive than its bamboo products.  However, NAD emphasized that Plant Paper is free to continue highlighting that its products are unbleached and free of PFAS and formaldehyde.

Plant Paper agreed to comply with the decision, but said it “respectfully disagrees with NAD’s finding that there was not enough evidence to show the comparative harms of competitor toilet paper products.”

More on BBB National Programs can be found here.