A recent greenwashing lawsuit against BlueTriton was dismissed in the U.S. Northern District Court of Illinois. The suit alleges that BlueTriton engaged in deceptive marketing by labeling water containing microplastics as “100% natural spring water.” However, the court found that the suit is preempted by federal law, specifically the FDA’s definition of “spring water,” and must be dismissed. The court left room for the Plaintiffs to refile an amended complaint, though the judge openly speculated that odds of success were slim. ESG Dive writes about the dismissal stating:
“[Judge] Seeger’s dismissal said the Food and Drug Administration has defined the term ‘spring water,’ and that definition ‘doesn’t say anything about the existence of microscopic particles.’ The ruling, though ‘skeptical’ of their odds, left leave for the plaintiffs to amend their argument, and an amended complaint filed Friday sought to plug the holes in their argument.”
The Plaintiffs appear to be moving forward with the lawsuit despite possible headwinds and filed an amended complaint shortly after the dismissal. The amended complaint focuses on BlueTriton’s use of the phrase “100% natural” which the plaintiffs contend is ill-defined by the FDA and therefore not subject to preemption. But many US laws touching on sustainability matters are outdated. The FDA’s definition of “spring water” hasn’t been updated since at least 1995, almost a decade before the first study on microplastics was published. Sustainability practitioners should be familiar with what sustainability terms have or have not been defined legally, and how those definitions may differ from our modern understanding of the terms. Another example of how lawyers and sustainability practitioners need to work together.
Our members can learn more about greenwashing here.
If you aren’t already subscribed to our complimentary ESG blog, sign up here for daily updates delivered right to you.
