SAN FRANCISCO (Legal Newsline) – A class action plaintiff has sufficiently alleged most of her claims in a lawsuit that says she was misled by the wording on bags used for recycling.
Hefty recycling bags aren’t actually recyclable, Lisabeth Hanscom and her lawyers at Gutride Safier alleged earlier this year. They did a good enough job to survive the company’s motion to dismiss, San Francisco federal judge Jeffrey White wrote on Oct. 1.
“Plaintiff sufficiently alleges that Hefty’s labeling practices contravene the public policy in favor of reducing plastic waste because the materials placed inside the bags are diverted to landfill instead of being recycled, as intended,” White wrote.
The bags themselves can’t be recycled. But they are a transparent blue and used to hold recyclables, leading to the dispute over what the term “recycling bag” would lead a buyer to expect.
Hanscom’s consumer deception claims will move forward, finding a “reasonable consumer” might be misled by the word “recycling” in the title of the product. The packaging also includes the statements “Hefty recycling bags are perfect for all your recycling needs” and “Designed to handle all types of recyclables.”
Judge White did not buy Hefty’s argument that the case was akin to another that alleged Diet Dr. Pepper helped with weight loss because it is labeled diet.
Citing the dictionary, White the term “recycling” can mean “the materials such as paper, glass and plastic that you collect to be recycled.”
“It is plausible that a reasonable consumer would be deceived to discover that a product promoted as playing a valuable role in the recycling process in fact impedes that process,” he wrote.
“Accordingly, the Court cannot conclude as a matter of law that no reasonable consumer would understand the term “recycling” on the packaging to mean that the bag is either capable of being recycled or suitable for use in the recycling process.”
White did toss a few claims, including:
-That the products are “unlawful” under the Unfair Competition Law;
-That the company’s website makes the misleading claims (the plaintiff couldn’t allege she relied on statements on the site when purchasing the bags); and
-A claim for equitable relief, which she will be allowed to amend.