Peterson v. The Glad Products Company

Background

Patrick Peterson brought a proposed class action against The Glad Products Company and The Clorox Company concerning the labeling of Glad “Recycling” bags. The front label used the word “RECYCLING,” displayed two blue arrows, and stated “DESIGNED FOR MUNICIPAL USE” and “PLEASE CHECK YOUR LOCAL FACILITIES.” Peterson alleged that the bags were made of plastic film that was not recyclable and were not accepted for use in recycling programs in virtually any municipality in California and the United States, including the municipality in which he resides.

Peterson alleged that he bought a package of the bags in San Francisco in 2022 for approximately $15.00. He said he relied on the recycling representation and the blue-arrow symbol, believed the bags were recyclable and compatible with municipal recycling programs, and later learned that San Francisco recyclables must be loose and free of a plastic bag liner. He alleged that he would not have bought the bags, or would have paid significantly less, had he known the truth. He also alleged that he wanted to purchase the products again if he could be sure that they were recyclable or compatible with municipal recycling use, but could not rely on the labels to determine whether the products had been improved.

The operative complaint asserted seven causes of action: violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act; breach of warranty; fraudulent inducement or intentional misrepresentation; negligent misrepresentation; and unjust enrichment or restitution. Peterson sought monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief.

Motion and legal standard

The defendants moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which permits dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. They challenged only Peterson’s standing to seek injunctive relief. Standing is the constitutional requirement that a plaintiff show an actual injury, a connection between that injury and the defendant’s conduct, and a likelihood that a favorable court decision would remedy the injury.

The defendants argued that Peterson could check his local recycling facility’s website to determine whether the bags were accepted. They contended that, because Peterson now knew the bags were not accepted in his locality, he could not show a real and immediate risk of future harm. They also argued that they could not control which of thousands of municipalities accepted the bags and that changes to the labels could not provide all the information Peterson needed.

Court’s analysis

The court applied Ninth Circuit precedent holding that a consumer who was allegedly deceived by false advertising or labeling may still have standing to seek an injunction if the consumer plausibly alleges a future injury. That injury may arise when the consumer wants to buy the product but cannot rely on its advertising or labeling, or when the consumer might buy the product again while reasonably but incorrectly assuming that the problem had been fixed.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that Peterson automatically lacked standing because he could conduct independent research. The relevant question was whether Peterson could rely on the products’ labels in the future, not whether he could refute the labels by searching for information elsewhere. The court found that Peterson plausibly alleged that, without an injunction, he could not determine from the labels whether the bags had been reformulated and had become recyclable or compatible with municipal recycling programs.

The court also found it premature to dismiss the request for injunctive relief based on the wording of Peterson’s requested remedy. At this stage, Peterson needed to describe the general contours of the requested injunction, not specify its final terms. The court could establish the precise terms later through fact-finding, negotiations, and expert testimony if injunctive relief were ultimately warranted.

Disposition

The court concluded that Peterson had established standing to seek injunctive relief and DENIED the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The opinion did not decide the truth of the labeling allegations, the merits of Peterson’s causes of action, or whether an injunction should ultimately issue.