- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Finance and Tax Executives
- in United States
- with readers working within the Chemicals, Environment & Waste Management and Construction & Engineering industries
The year 2025 saw an increase in recall class actions challenging false advertising, labeling, and recall remedies across consumer goods, from household products to pet food. One persistent question for courts in these recall cases is whether the plaintiff has Article III standing, which often hinges on "traceability." These cases do not appear to be slowing down in 2026, as consumers are becoming even more conscious and selective about the products they purchase, driving greater scrutiny and risk for product companies across all industries.
Class Actions Targeting False Advertising and Purported Mislabeling
In 2025, recall lawsuits and class actions focused their claims on allegations that companies engaged in misleading marketing representations and false advertising, including claims of insufficient recall practices.
A South Carolina plaintiff filed an individual suit against American Honda Motor Co. (Babb v. American Honda Motor Co., No. 2:25-cv-13205-RMG-MHC (D.S.C.)), alleging that two Honda generators purchased from an authorized dealer were dangerously defective due to a design flaw causing fire hazards, especially around saltwater. The suit claims Honda failed to adequately disclose the defect or notify plaintiff about a 2020 recall, even after one of his generators caught fire four years after the recall, and engaged in false advertising by representing the generators as safe and suitable for their intended use. The plaintiff specifically contends that Honda's recall was inadequate because it failed to compensate for non-use, inconvenience, and costly repairs and failed to reimburse many service centers for repairing the vehicles, causing them to refuse recall services. The complaint includes counts for breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, violation of South Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act, false advertising, and strict liability, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
In Snow v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00110-MWJS-KJM (D. Haw.), the plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint, alleging that L'Oreal USA's benzoyl peroxide ("BPO") acne treatment products contained or degraded into unsafe levels of benzene—a known human carcinogen—under normal use, handling, and storage. Plaintiff Snow claims that L'Oreal failed to warn consumers about this risk, omitted benzene from product labels, and only initiated a recall in March 2025, long after regulatory alerts and independent laboratory testing revealed contamination. Snow further asserts that L'Oreal misled consumers and falsely marketed its BPO products as safe, scientifically advanced, and dermatologically recommended, while concealing known material health and safety risks from benzene contamination. The complaint seeks to represent all Hawaii consumers who purchased the products, asserting claims for false advertising, unfair and deceptive acts and practices, breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment.
In Barraza v. Evenflo Company, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-12914-NMG (D. Mass.), plaintiff asserts that Evenflo's car seats are dangerously defective due to a removable headrest cover that exposes foam, posing a choking hazard for young children. Evenflo issued a voluntary recall affecting approximately 324,000 car seats manufactured between December 2022 and December 2024, providing a tape seal and installation instructions. The Barraza plaintiff claimed the recall was insufficient because the products remained unsafe and Evenflo failed to compensate consumers for their purchase. Plaintiff Barraza also asserts that Evenflo falsely marketed its car seats as safe and failed to disclose the choking risk despite knowing about the hazard from product testing reports and consumer complaints. Plaintiff alleges that she relied on Evenflo's safety representations and paid a price premium for the car seats, which was not restored by the recall. The lawsuit asserts that a class should be certified on claims for breach of implied warranty, violations of California consumer protection statutes, false advertising, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment.
These cases illustrate a shift in consumer recall litigation to focus class allegations on the accuracy of marketing and safety claims, including the sufficiency of recall and remediation efforts. In other words, putative class members are asserting that even when a company undergoes a recall – voluntary or otherwise– the action does not provide sufficient relief because the products still fail to comply with a company's representations. For industry players, one proactive approach that can be taken as the law continues to develop is to focus efforts on ensuring clear and explicit marketing definitions, transparent communications and labeling, rigorous testing to support claims (especially safety features), and proactive recall management.
Surge in Pet Food Litigation: Recalls and "Natural" Label Claims Under Scrutiny
Pet food companies are now facing increased scrutiny over product safety, ingredient labeling, and recall practices. Recent lawsuits target both claims of "natural" formulations and failures to deliver safe nutrition, reflecting growing consumer awareness and regulatory oversight in the pet food market.
In Van Wagner v. Wellness Pet Company, Inc. et al., 7:24CV08946, plaintiff Caroline Van Wagner filed a class action lawsuit in New York federal court alleging that Wellness Pet Company Inc.'s and WellPet LLC's "natural" pet food labels are misleading. Van Wagner claims she purchased Wellness Shreds Healthy Indulgence pet food believing it contained only natural ingredients, but the products actually include synthetic additives such as xanthan gum, tricalcium phosphate, and pyridoxine hydrochloride. The lawsuit asserts that these synthetic ingredients undermine the advertised health benefits and exploit the growing demand for natural pet food among conscious consumers. The complaint accuses the defendants of unjust enrichment and violations of state and federal consumer laws, arguing that Wellness Pet's marketing leads customers to pay a premium for products that are not truly natural. Van Wagner seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased the allegedly mislabeled products and is requesting damages in excess of $5 million, legal fees, and class certification.
The Van Wagner action joins a series of pet food class actions targeting pet food products. In late 2025, Mid America Pet Food agreed to pay $5.5 million to resolve a class action alleging its pet food products were contaminated with salmonella and misrepresented as safe and nutritious. The lawsuit was filed after multiple recalls and reports that the contaminated products caused severe illness and death in dogs, as well as several cases of Salmonella infection in children.
As consumers become increasingly conscious, careful, and selective about what they purchase for themselves and their pets, we anticipate that these types of claims will continue this year, especially as the FDA has issued a number of recalls including pet foods in December 2025 and issued an advisory on January 23, 2026 cautioning pet owners that another dog food brand tested positive for harmful bacteria.
Traceability and Standing in Product Recall Litigation
Recent federal court decisions highlight a recurring issue in product recall class actions: demonstrating Article III standing through properly alleged traceability, especially when recall and warranty remedies are available.
In July 2025, the Tenth Circuit in Hudson v. Boppy Co., LLC, No. 24-1322 (10th Cir. July 1, 2025) affirmed dismissal of a putative class action, finding the plaintiff lacked Article III standing due to a failure to plead traceability. Hudson purchased and safely used a Boppy infant lounger years before a major safety recall, then filed suit alleging economic injury based on Boppy's supposed misrepresentations about product safety. The court held that Hudson had not relied on or even seen defendant's statements, which were published after her purchase, and therefore could not connect any injury to Boppy's conduct. Without traceability, neither Hudson's individual claims nor the proposed class action could move forward.
Two months later, in Graham v. Am. Honda Motor Co., No. 3:24 C 50204 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 4, 2025), a federal court again considered traceability as a prerequisite for Article III standing in a class action concerning allegedly defective lawnmowers and engines. The plaintiffs claimed economic harm from purchasing these products that were allegedly worth less than advertised due to undisclosed defects. However, the court emphasized that, for economic loss to be traceable to the manufacturer, plaintiffs must show their injury is a direct result of the defendant's conduct, not their own decisions. The court held that when Honda provided an adequate repair or replacement remedy and plaintiffs chose not to pursue it, any economic injury was not traceable to Honda but instead to the plaintiffs' refusal to take advantage of available remedies. Therefore, only those plaintiffs who attempted and failed to secure an effective remedy retained standing.
These decisions underscore that benefit-of-the-bargain standing requires both a cognizable injury and a clear link of "traceability" between that the alleged injury and the defendant's actions.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
