Plastics Litigation Tracker

Allegations: Plaintiffs, a class of consumers, filed a lawsuit against Defendant, Handi-Craft Company, Inc., a company that manufactures, distributes, and sells plastic baby bottles and sippy cups. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant failed to warn consumers that the bottles and cups leached dangerous microplastics when heated--and that Defendant knew the bottles and cups would be heated in their regular use. Plaintiffs also argued that by advertising the bottles and cups as not containing Bisphenol A (being "BPA free"), Defendant misled customers and created a false sense of security, because although the bottles and cups do not leach BPA, they leach microplastics, which cause health issues in children, including damaging children's digestive tracts, immune systems, and reproductive systems. Plaintiffs are California residents who are seeking to represent classes covering purchases of the bottles and cups in California and nationwide. On behalf of the California class, Plaintiffs assert violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200, ET SEQ.); California's False Advertising Law (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17500); California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 1750, ET SEQ.). On behalf of both the California and nationwide classes, Plaintiffs assert claims of breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek class certification; declaratory relief; an injunction barring the company's marketing of the bottles and cups as safe; an injunction barring the sale of the bottles and cups; damages, restitution, and disgorgement; punitive damages; attorneys' fees; and all relief the court deems just and proper. Filed on 06/25/2024. See the complaint here.

Status: Pending.

Allegations: Plaintiffs, a class of consumers, filed a lawsuit against Defendant, Phillips North America LLC, a company that manufactures, distributes, and sells plastic baby bottles. Plaintiffs argue that Defendant failed to warn consumers that the bottles leached dangerous microplastics when the bottles are heated--and that Defendant knew the bottles would be heated in their regular use. Plaintiffs also argued that by advertising the bottles as not containing Bisphenol A (being "BPA free"), Defendant misled customers and created a false sense of security, because although the bottles do not leach BPA, they leach microplastics, which cause health issues in children, including damaging children's digestive tracts, immune systems, and reproductive systems. Plaintiffs are California residents who are seeking to represent classes covering purchases of the bottles in California and nationwide. On behalf of the California class, Plaintiffs assert violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200, ET SEQ.); California's False Advertising Law (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17500); California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 1750, ET SEQ.). On behalf of both the California and nationwide classes, Plaintiffs assert claims of breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek class certification; declaratory relief; an injunction barring the company's marketing of the bottles as safe; an injunction barring the sale of the bottles; damages, restitution, and disgorgement; punitive damages; attorneys' fees; and all relief the court deems just and proper. Filed on 06/25/2024. See the complaint here.

Status: Pending.

Allegations: Plaintiffs, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland, brought a case against PepsiCo, Coca Cola, Frito Lay, and plastic manufacturing companies, for their roles in creating a plastic pollution crisis in Baltimore. In their complaint, Plaintiffs argued that plastic litter from Defendants' companies has created a public nuisance in the city, which harms human and environmental health and is costly for the city to clean up. Plaintiffs also argued that Defendants made misleading statements concerning the recyclability of their products, engaged in deceptive practices, failed to warn consumers about the health and environmental impacts of their products, committed a continuing trespass by polluting the City's lands and waters, are strictly liable for design defects, and negligently designed defective and unreasonably dangerous products. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, equitable relief, criminal penalties, punitive damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement of products, Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, and any other relief as the court may deem proper. Filed on 06/20/2024. See the complaint here.

Status: Pending.

Allegations: Plaintiff, a consumer who purchased “Fiji” bottled water, alleges individually and on behalf of all other members of the public similarly situated, that Defendant, The Wonderful Company, LLC, a company that advertises, markets, sells, and distributes bottled water under the brand name “Fiji,” violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. Plaintiff argued that Defendant made false and misleading claims when it marketed its product as “Natural Artisan Water,” when it contains microplastics. Plaintiff argued that Defendant’s deceptive practices deprived Plaintiff of their legally protected interest to obtain accurate information about the product they are consuming. Filed on 2/14/2024. See the complaint here.

Status: This case is pending. On March 22, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. On April 26, Plaintiff responded to the motion to dismiss. On May 10, Defendant filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. A hearing is scheduled for May 20, and a status hearing will be set once the motion is ruled upon.

Allegations: Plaintiff, a consumer who purchased "Arrowhead" plastic bottled water, alleges individually and on behalf of all other members of the public similarly situated, that Defendant, BlueTriton Brands, Inc., a corporation that advertises, markets, sells, and distributes plastic bottled water under the brand name "Arrowhead," violated California's Unfair Competition Law §§ 17200 and 17500. Plaintiff argued that Defendant intentionally labeled its products with false and misleading claims that the bottled water was "100% Mountain Spring Water," when it contained microplastics. Plaintiffs argued that bottled water contaminated with microplastics cannot be "100% Mountain Spring Water," and that consumers would not expect that a product labeled in this way would contain microplastic contaminants. Filed on 02/26/2024. See the complaint here.

Status: This case is pending. On March 4, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. On March 18, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint, and on March 19, the court dismissed Defendant's motion to dismiss as moot. On April 1, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint. On May 6, the court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. The court ordered that Plaintiff's second amended complaint, should it choose to file one, is due May 28, 2024.

Allegations: Plaintiff, a consumer who purchased "Crystal Geyser" plastic bottled water, alleges individually and on behalf of a putative class, that Defendant, CG Roxane, LLC, a corporation that advertises, markets, sells, and distributes plastic bottled water under the brand name "Crystal Geyser," violated California's Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Business & Professions Code § 17200) and violated California's False Advertising Law (Cal. Business & Professions Code § 17500) by advertising and labeling Crystal Geyer plastic bottled water as "Natural Alpine Spring Water" when the water allegedly contains microplastics. Plaintiff filed the complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Filed on 02/22/2024.

Outcome: Closed. On April 1, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). On April 25, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, noting that Defendant had neither answered Plaintiff's complaint nor filed a motion for summary judgment.

Allegations: Plaintiff, a consumer who purchased "Evian" plastic bottled water, alleges individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, that Defendant, Danone Waters of America, LLC, a corporation that advertises, markets, sells, and distributes plastic bottled water under the brand name "Evian," violated California's Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 and 17500) by advertising and labeling Evian plastic bottled water as "Natural Spring Water" when the water contains microplastics. Plaintiff filed the complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. Filed on 03/25/2024. See the complaint here.

Outcome: Closed. On March 28, the case was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los Angeles). On April 3, Plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice, noting that Plaintiff's counsel had conferred with Defendant's counsel, and that Defendant did not oppose dismissal.

Allegations: Plaintiffs, a class of consumers who purchased plastic bottled water, brought this case against Defendant, BlueTriton Brands, Inc., a corporation that advertises, markets, sells, and distributes plastic bottled water under the brand name "Ice Mountain," seeking damages and injunctive relief for violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505/1, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment, for intentionally labeling its plastic bottled water as "100% Natural Spring Water," when the water contains microplastics. Plaintiffs argued that bottled water contaminated with microplastics cannot be 100% natural spring water, and that reasonable consumers do not expect that a product labeled as "100% Natural" would contain synthetic contaminants. Filed on 01/19/2024. See the complaint here.

Status: This case is pending. On February 26, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed a response on March 18, and the court has yet to rule on the motions.

Allegations: Plaintiff, a consumer who purchased "Poland Spring" plastic bottled water, brought a consumer protection and false advertising class action case (individually and on behalf of a nation-wide class and a New York sub-class) againt Defendant, Bluetrison Brands, Inc., a corporation that advertises, markets, sells, and distributes plastic bottled water under the brand name "Poland Spring." Plaintiff raised five claims: breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment (a common law claim for restitution), negligent misrepresentation, and violations of New York Business Law §§ 349 and 350 (with claims four and five relating to the New York sub-class only). Plaintiff argued that Defendant labeled and advertised its Poland Spring bottled water as being "100% Natural Spring Water," which is false for two reasons. First, Plaintiff argues that the water "contains alarming levels of phthalates in each bottle, a synthetic chemical used as a plasticizer, increasing the flexibility, transparency, durability, and longevity of plastic products." Plaintiff explains that "[s]cientific studies have linked phthalates to numerous concerning and severe health effects, including heart problems and hormone disruption" and that "[t]here is currently no level of phthalates in food or beverages that is considered safe for consumption." Second, Plaintiff argues that "every bottle of Poland Spring contains dangerous levels of microplastics." Plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief. Filed on 03/5/2024. See the complaint here.

Status: Pending. An in-person motion conference is scheduled for June 18.

Allegations: Plaintiffs, a class of consumers who purchased Defendant's product, "Evian Natural Spring Water" bottled water, brought this action alleging that Defendant's labeling and packaging falsely misled consumers to believe that the manufacturing of the bottles was "sustainable," "carbon neutral," and "did not leave a carbon footprint." Plaintiffs raised the following claims: (i) violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq., (ii) violation of New York General Business Law (“GBL”) § 349, (iii) violation of GBL § 350, (iv) breach of express warranty, (v) breach of implied warranty, (vi) unjust enrichment, and (vii) fraud. In their complaint, Plaintiffs also argued that even if Defendant construes "carbon neutral" to mean that the carbon emissions created during the production of the plastic water bottles are "offset" by the "carbon credits" purchased by Defendant, such a representation would still be false, because "organizations Defendant works with that are the basis for its 'carbon credits' do not currently or actually reduce CO2 emissions, and thus do not 'offset' the CO2 emissions created by Defendant's production of the product in any manner." Plaintiffs sought: (i) an order certifying the class; (ii) an order declaring that Defendant's conduct violates the statutes listed in the complaint; (iii) an order finding in favor of Plaintiffs on the grounds listed in their complaint; (iv) compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages; (v) prejudgment interest in all amounts awarded; (vi) restitution; and (vii) attorney's fees. Filed on 10/13/2022. See the complaint here.

Status: This case is pending. On January 5, 2023, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint, which includes the same claims raised in Plaintiff's original complaint, but adds an additional claim: that Defendant's misrepresentation that its products were "carbon neutral" also violated Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93a. On April 27, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's first amended complaint, as well as a memorandum of law in support of its motion. On the same day, Plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law opposing Defendant's motion to dismiss. On January 10, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion to dismiss. The court granted Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for (1) violation of GBL § 349; (2) violation of GBL § 350; and (3) breach of implied warranty. It dismissed these claims without prejudice. The court also denied Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for (1) violation of Chapter 93A; (2) violation of CLRA; (3) breach of express warranty; (4) unjust enrichment; and (5) fraud. The court explained that because Plaintiffs' first amended complaint was the first complaint for which motion practice occurred, the claims it dismissed are deemed dismissed without prejudice and the parties are granted leave to file amended pleadings. Specifically, the court granted Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint by February 2, 2024, consistent with the court's January 10 order. The court advised Plaintiffs that the second amended complaint would replace, not supplement, the first amended complaint, and so any claims that Plaintiffs wish to pursue must be included in, or attached to, the second amended complaint. It also noted that should Plaintiffs file a second amended complaint, Defendant must answer or otherwise respond by March 4, 2024. Finally, it explained that should Plaintiffs fail to file a second amended complaint within the time allowed, those claims that were dismissed without prejudice will be deemed dismissed with prejudice. On January 30, the parties filed a joint letter seeking an extension of time to complete motions for partial reconsideration of the court's order denying in part and granting in part Defendant's motion to dismiss. The court granted the parties' request on January 31, and ordered that motions are due by March 27. In its order, the court also stayed the deadline for Plaintiff's second amended complaint until the court issues a decision on the motions. The parties filed their motions on March 27.