
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- EPA Can Reconsider Rulemaking without Vacatur in Clean Air Act Citizen Suit, Sixth Circuit Holds
- In Rejecting J&J Bankruptcy Petition, Court Reminds that Financial Distress is a Prerequisite to Bankruptcy
- Third Circuit Confirms 27-Year-Old Clean Water Act Consent Decree Still Enforceable
- Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Finds Local Stormwater Charge Constitutes A Tax
- Nuns’ Religious Freedom Lawsuit Against Pipeline Held To Be Impermissible Collateral Attack On FERC Approval
Topics
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Utilities
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Electric
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Water
- Illinois
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Consent Decree
- Equity
- Laches
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Legislation
- Case Update
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Insurance
- CERCLA
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Real Estate
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Odors
- Class Actions
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- Speaking Engagements
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Last month we reported on Curtis v. 7-Eleven, in which the Northern District of Illinois held that marking products as “recyclable” when they may not, as a practical matter, be recycled did not constitute consumer fraud because the fact that the material is capable of being recycled is not false or misleading. This month, the Northern District of California came to the same conclusion. In David Swartz, et al., v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al., No. 21-cv-04643 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2022), the Honorable James Donato of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted a motion to dismiss claims brought against defendants Coca-Cola, Blue Triton Brands, and Niagara Bottling (collectively the “Defendants”) by plaintiff individuals and Sierra Club (“Plaintiffs”). Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants alleging violations of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law, and that such violations constitute fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation and negligent misrepresentation. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that the “100% recyclable” labels on single-use plastic bottles supplied by the Defendants were false and misleading because most plastic bottles are not recycled and instead end up in landfills or incinerators due to a lack of recycling capacity and a lack of demand for recycled plastics.
In filing a complaint, plaintiffs “have the initial burden of pleading ‘factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged’ as informed by ‘judicial experience and common sense.’” Id., citing Cannara v. Nemeth, 467 F.Supp. 3d 877, 882 (N.D. Cal. 2020) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009). In dismissing the complaint, Judge Donato found that the complaint filed by Plaintiffs failed to meet this threshold requirement, as “[n]o reasonable consumer would understand ‘100% recyclable’ to mean that the entire product will always be recycled or that the product ‘is part of a circular plastics economy in which all bottles are recycled into new bottles… .” Order Granting Mot. Dismiss. Instead, a reasonable consumer would understand that making an object recyclable is just the first step in the process of converting waste into reusable material, and not a guarantee that the process will be completed.
Judge Donato also found Plaintiffs’ interpretation of “recyclable” inconsistent with the Green Guides published by the Federal Trade Commission, which provide the standard for environmental marketing claims under California Law. Specifically, Judge Donato found that whether a product is properly labeled “recyclable” under the Green Guides depends on whether it is comprised of materials that can be recycled, not, as Plaintiffs’ allege, on whether the product is actually converted into reusable material.