Greenwashing Suits Expand While PFAS Product Cases Hit Standing Hurdles

Greenwashing claims continue to expand, with an active plaintiff bar issuing demand letters and filing suits on subjects such as biodegradability, PFAS, heavy metals, and recycling.

Legal claims on biodegradability and recycling are generally premised on the FTC Green Guides or California laws. While the Green Guides have not been updated in more than a decade, California law arguably prohibits any claim of biodegradability and regulates when composting claims may be made. Regarding recyclability claims, California's SB 343, the Truth in Recycling Act, takes effect in 2026 and regulates which products can contain such a claim (including the innocuous "chasing arrows symbol") based on the collection and actual recycling rates of material types in California. CalRecycle has issued a material characterization study that does not provide clear guidance on whether most material types qualify for recycling claims in California, which may also be contributing to confusion felt by industry.

For PFAS and heavy metals claims, plaintiffs have argued that trace amounts of certain compounds are inconsistent with marketing claims or that a duty to disclose exists. While substantial litigation was filed on these topics in the last year, particularly for foods and personal care products, defendants have prevailed on motions to dismiss these types of trace amount PFAS cases, often on the grounds of standing and plausibility.

In the Southern District of New York, a number of courts have granted motions to dismiss on standing where the plaintiffs relied on third-party PFAS testing not tied to actual purchases, lacked temporal proximity, or did not provide the detail to allege plausible widespread contamination. A recent Minnesota federal district court decision held similarly in a putative nationwide consumer class action targeting PFAS-treated carpets, as there was no allegations the plaintiffs' carpets themselves were so treated. And in the Northern District of California, courts have held that organic fluorine testing fails to plausibly show PFAS in products. Those PFAS cases that have reached later litigation stages still relate more directly to PFAS manufacturing or alleged drinking water contamination. For example, in late fall 2025, we saw partial certification of a ratepayer damages class related to certain drinking water districts in Georgia.

Motions to dismiss have not been regularly granted in heavy metal cases, with some now having proceeded to summary judgment. In March 2024, for example, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in In re Plum Baby Food Litigation, finding that plaintiffs did not establish that the levels of heavy metals posed an unreasonable safety hazard since they occur naturally in many agricultural products, exceeded any regulatory or other safety standards, rendered the products unsafe, or caused any actual harm.

In 2026, we may see more of the same, with plaintiffs expanding the list of compound targets to include phenols, phthalates, and more.

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.