TAMPA, Fla. (Legal Newsline) - Walmart is arguing a class action lawsuit accusing it of destroying the ocean's coral reef is ridiculous.
The case, filed Nov. 13 in Florida federal court, argued that despite Walmart's sunscreen being labeled as "Reef Friendly, it actually contains ingredients that are harmful to reefs.
It is being pursued by a controversial class action lawyer who has filed hundreds of cases and has been described as a "wrecking ball" by one of the judges tired of hearing them. Attorney Spencer Sheehan is also awaiting his punishment from a New York federal judge who held him in contempt last year.
"Plaintiff does not state that she did not like the Product, that it caused health problems, or that it in fact did harm coral reefs—or even that she used the Product near a coral reef," Walmart's March 29 motion to dismiss says.
"Instead, she takes issue with the inclusion of avobenzone, homosalate, octisalate, and octocrylene, which she contends makes the 'reef friendly' label false and misleading. These claims are baseless."
An asterisk on the phrase "Reef Friendly" directs consumers to the back of the packaging for its definition, which is that the sunscreen is compliant with Hawaii's SB2571. That law banned oxybenzone and octinoxate from sunscreens.
The lawsuit does not allege the presence of those chemicals but does four others not subject to the Hawaii law that Walmart bases its "Reef Friendly" claim on.
The suit claims named plaintiff Nakiah Alvarado would not have paid $4.88 for her sunscreen had she known those four chemicals were in it. Walmart says she and Sheehan filed suit rather than seeking a refund pursuant to an express guarantee on the sunscreen.
The chemicals - avobenzone, homosalate, octisalate and octocrylene - are listed as inactive ingredients on the label.
William Wright of West Palm Beach has teamed with Sheehan for the lawsuit. Walmart is represented by Evenlyn Cobos and others at Greenberg Traurig in Miami and Los Angeles.