Swartz v. The Coca-Cola Company

Background

This consumer class action concerns plastic water bottles labeled “100% Recyclable.” The plaintiffs brought consumer-deception claims against The Coca-Cola Company, Bluetriton Brands, and Niagara Bottling.

The court had dismissed two earlier versions of the complaint but allowed the plaintiffs to amend. Those earlier rulings concluded that the plaintiffs had standing to sue, but that their deception claims were not sufficiently plausible under California law and the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, which address environmental marketing claims.

The earlier complaints focused on whether minor parts of the bottles could be recycled. The amended complaint took a different approach and included a consumer survey. According to the complaint, most surveyed consumers understood “100% Recyclable” to mean that the entire bottle, including the caps and labels, could be recycled through established recycling programs. Most respondents also believed that bottles with the “100% Recyclable” label were more capable of being completely recycled than otherwise identical bottles labeled only “Recyclable.”

Court’s Analysis

The court held that these allegations were sufficient to allow the claims to proceed. It explained that California law and the Green Guides permit certain unqualified recycling claims when the entire product or package, apart from minor incidental components, can be recycled through established programs available to a substantial majority of Californians.

The court concluded, however, that the “100%” wording plausibly made the defendants’ statements different from the claims protected by that safe harbor. The court also noted that environmental marketing claims may not overstate an environmental benefit directly or by implication.

The amended complaint alleged that California recycling facilities cannot process the plastic film used for the defendants’ labels. It further alleged that facilities responsible for more than 40% of the polyethylene terephthalate bottle recycling in California dispose of those labels as refuse. The court found that these allegations supported a plausible inference that the products could not be “100%” recycled by California plants.

Disposition

The court denied defendants’ third motion to dismiss. The deception claims therefore move forward at this stage. The parties were directed to jointly propose an amended scheduling order by April 25, 2024.

This was a ruling on a motion to dismiss, so the court decided only that the amended complaint plausibly stated claims; the order did not resolve whether the “100% Recyclable” labels were ultimately deceptive. Judge James Donato signed the order on April 8, 2024.