A group of plaintiffs filed a proposed class action against BIC, claiming that the company failed to inform its consumers that its shaving razors contain PFAS. With their suit, the plaintiffs assert claims—on behalf of a national class and a California subclass—for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies…
“100% Organic Cotton.” “Gentle and safe for your body.” “Only what you need, nothing you don’t.” Those representations about tampons were false or misleading, according to the plaintiffs, because the tampons contained synthetic PFAS chemicals. A federal court in California granted the tampon company’s motion to dismiss. It reasoned that the plaintiffs did not “plausibly…
A putative class action against Smucker alleges that Smucker falsely represented pet food products are healthy when in fact the food allegedly contains titanium dioxide, and the packaging “contain (or risk containing)” PFAS. The pet owner’s claims—including consumer protection, false advertising, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims—survived Smucker’s motion to dismiss. As in other consumer class…
The Office of Attorney General of California filed a civil complaint against 3M Company and other chemical companies, alleging that the defendant chemical companies knew or should have known that PFAS chemicals are toxic and harmful to human health and the environment and that these companies continued to produce these chemicals for use in products…
Azman Hussain filed a putative class action suit against Burger King Corporation, which alleged that he and other members were injured by Burger King’s alleged misrepresentations and omissions regarding the presence of PFAS in its food packaging. Burger King, in a motion to dismiss, argued that its use of PFAS in its food packaging was…