Case 3:21-cv-00754-MMC Document 45 Filed 11/10/21 Page 1 of 34
`
`Patrick L. Oot (pro hac vice granted)
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`1800 K Street, N.W., Suite 1000
`Washington, DC 20006
`Tel: 202.783.8400 | Fax: 202.783.4211
`oot@shb.com
`Eva M. Weiler (SBN: 233942)
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`Jamboree Center
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1600
`Irvine, California 92614-2546
`Tel: 949.475.1600 | Fax: 949.475.0016
`eweiler@shb.com
`M. Kevin Underhill (SBN: 208211)
`Steve Vieux (SBN: 315133)
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`555 Mission Street, Suite 2300
`San Francisco, California 94105
`Tel: 415.544.1900 | Fax: 415.391.0281
`kunderhill@shb.com
`svieux@shb.com
`Attorneys for Defendant Walmart Inc.
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SAN FRANCISCO
`GREENPEACE, INC.,
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-00754 MMC
`Plaintiff,
`Judge: Hon. Maxine M. Chesney
`Courtroom: 7
`
`vs.
`WALMART INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`WALMART INC.’S NOTICE OF MOTION
`AND MOTION TO DISMISS THE
`SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
`
`Date: Dec. 17, 2021
`Time: 9:00 a.m.
`
`
`Complaint filed Dec. 16, 2020
`First Am. Compl. filed Mar. 29, 2021
`Second Am. Compl. filed Oct. 15, 2021
`
`WALMART’S NOTICE & MTN TO DISMISS SAC
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00754-MMC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00754-MMC Document 45 Filed 11/10/21 Page 2 of 34
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 2
`FACTS ALLEGED ......................................................................................................................... 3
`LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................................................... 7
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 8
`I.
`Greenpeace Still Does Not Allege Facts Showing It “Lost Money or Property as a
`Result of” the Alleged Misconduct, No Matter How It Characterizes Its Claims. ............. 8
`A.
`The challenged conduct still consists of alleged misrepresentations to
`consumers, and Greenpeace cannot base a claim on third-party reliance. .............. 9
`Greenpeace does not allege it “lost money or property as a result of” any other
`unlawful or unfair practices. ................................................................................. 10
`1.
`Greenpeace does not allege it lost money due to a failure to
`substantiate. ............................................................................................... 11
`The UCL does not allow “organizational standing.” ................................ 13
`2.
`Greenpeace has not adequately alleged organizational standing. ............. 17
`3.
`Both of Greenpeace’s UCL Causes of Action Would Fail for Other Reasons as Well. ... 20
`A.
`“Recyclability” claims are not subject to the substantiation requirement under
`current law. ........................................................................................................... 20
`Private parties cannot enforce substantiation requirements in any event, at
`least under the circumstances here. ....................................................................... 21
`Greenpeace does not allege facts showing it is unlawful or unfair to label the
`products as “recyclable,” with or without substantiation. ..................................... 22
`Greenpeace Still Alleges No Facts Showing It Is Entitled to Injunctive Relief, the
`Only Form of Relief It Seeks. ........................................................................................... 23
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 25
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`ii
`
`WALMART’S NOTICE & MTN TO DISMISS SAC
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00754-MMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00754-MMC Document 45 Filed 11/10/21 Page 3 of 34
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page(s)
`
`Am. Diabetes Assoc. v. United States Dept. of the Army,
`938 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2019) .......................................................................................................17
`
`Amalgamated Transit Union, Loc. 1756, AFL–CIO v. Superior Ct.,
`46 Cal. 4th 993 (2009) .............................................................................................8, 13, 14, 15, 16
`
`Animal Legal Def. Fund v. LT Napa Partners LLC,
`234 Cal. App. 4th 1270 (2015) ......................................................................................................14
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .........................................................................................................................7
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) .........................................................................................................................7
`
`California Med. Assoc. v. Aetna Health of Cal.,
`491 P.3d 1045 (Cal. July 28, 2021) ...............................................................................................17
`
`California Med. Assoc. v. Aetna Health of Cal., Inc.,
`63 Cal. App. 5th 660 (2021) ....................................................................................................15, 17
`
`Californians for Disability Rts. v. Mervyn’s LLC,
`39 Cal. 4th 223 (2006) ...............................................................................................................8, 14
`
`City of Los Angeles v. Lyons,
`461 U.S. 95 (1983) .........................................................................................................................23
`
`Daro v. Superior Court,
`151 Cal. App. 4th 1079 (2007) ......................................................................................................12
`
`eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.,
`547 U.S. 388 (2006) .......................................................................................................................23
`
`El Rescate Legal Servs., Inc. v. Exec. Off. of Immigr. Rev.,
`959 F.2d 742 (9th Cir. 1992) .........................................................................................................18
`
`Ely Holdings Ltd. v. O’Keeffe’s, Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-06721-JCS, 2019 WL 3779197 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2019) .........................................10
`
`Freeman v. ABC Legal Servs., Inc.,
`877 F. Supp. 2d 919 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .....................................................................................23, 24
`
`Friends of the Earth v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.,
`992 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2021) .............................................................................................17, 18, 19
`
`Greenpeace, Inc. v. Walmart Inc.,
`No. 3:21-cv-00754-MMC, 2021 WL 4267536 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2021) .......................3, 8, 9, 10
`iii
`WALMART’S NOTICE & MTN TO DISMISS SAC
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00754-MMC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00754-MMC Document 45 Filed 11/10/21 Page 4 of 34
`
`Hall v. Time Inc.,
`158 Cal. App. 4th 847 (2008) ..................................................................................................14, 15
`
`Huynh v. Quora, Inc.,
`No. 5:18-CV-07597-BLF, 2020 WL 7495097 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2020) ....................................23
`
`In Defense of Animals v. Sanderson Farms, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-05293-RS, 2021 4243391 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2021) ............................................18, 19
`
`Jiles v. US Bank NA,
`No. CV 12-10397-SJO, 2013 WL 12134143 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2013) .......................................10
`
`Johns v. Bayer Corp.,
`No. 09-CV-1935-AJB-DHB, 2013 WL 1498965 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 10, 2013) ................................21
`
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) .....................................................................................................7, 9
`
`Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct.,
`51 Cal. 4th 310 (2011) .........................................................................................................8, 14, 15
`
`La Asociación de Trabajadores de Lake Forest v. City of Lake Forest,
`624 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2010) .......................................................................................................18
`
`Law Offices of Mathew Higbee v. Expungement Assistance Servs.,
`214 Cal. App. 4th 544 (2013) ........................................................................................................13
`
`LegalForce RAPC Worldwide P.C. v. DeMassa,
`No. 18-cv-00043-MMC, 2020 WL 4747909 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2020) ......................................10
`
`Mayron v. Google LLC,
`54 Cal. App. 5th 566, 574 (2020) ............................................................................................11, 12
`
`Mier v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.,
`No. SACV 2001979-DOC-ADS, 2021 WL 1559367 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2021) .........................21
`
`Nat’l Council Against Health Fraud Inc. v. King Bio Pharms. Inc.,
`107 Cal. App. 4th 1336 (2003) ......................................................................................................21
`
`Nguyen v. Endologix, Inc.,
`962 F.3d 405 (9th Cir. 2020) ...........................................................................................................7
`
`Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp.,
`971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020) .........................................................................................................23
`
`Stop Youth Addiction, Inc. v. Lucky Stores, Inc.,
`17 Cal. 4th 553 (1998) .....................................................................................................................8
`
`Swearingen v. Pacific Foods of Oregon, Inc.,
`No. 13-cv-04157-JD, 2014 WL 3767052 (N.D. Cal. July 31, 2014)...............................................9
`
`iv
`
`WALMART’S NOTICE & MTN TO DISMISS SAC
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00754-MMC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00754-MMC Document 45 Filed 11/10/21 Page 5 of 34
`
`Statutes
`
`15 U.S.C. § 45 ........................................................................................................................................6
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 ............................................................................................................6
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17508 ..........................................................................................................21
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17508.5 .......................................................................................................20
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17580 ..........................................................................................................20
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17580.5 .........................................................................................................6
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 ..........................................................................................................24
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 ......................................................................................................8, 10
`
`Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 382 ............................................................................................................15, 16
`
`Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 42355.5 ............................................................................................................20
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) ................................................................................................................................7
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ..........................................................................................................................7, 10
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)..........................................................................................................................1
`
`Other Authorities
`
`16 C.F.R. § 260.1 et seq. ........................................................................................................................5
`
`16 C.F.R. § 260.12(a).......................................................................................................................5, 22
`
`16 C.F.R. § 260.12(b)(1) ..................................................................................................................6, 22
`
`1995 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 642 ............................................................................................................20
`
`Sen. Committee Report on S.B. 426 (Mar. 27, 1995) (attached as Ex. A) ..........................................20
`
`2021 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 507 ............................................................................................................20
`
`v
`
`WALMART’S NOTICE & MTN TO DISMISS SAC
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00754-MMC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00754-MMC Document 45 Filed 11/10/21 Page 6 of 34
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 17, 2021, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as
`the matter may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable Maxine M. Chesney in the United States
`Courthouse, Courtroom 7, 19th Floor, San Francisco Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San
`Francisco, CA 94102, Defendant Walmart Inc. will and hereby does move for an order dismissing
`Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.
`Walmart moves to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the following
`grounds: (1) Greenpeace’s UCL claims fail because it has not lost money or property as a result of
`Walmart’s alleged conduct; (2) the claims also fail because Greenpeace has not alleged facts
`showing Walmart violated an applicable law or engaged in any unfair practice; and (3) Greenpeace
`has not alleged facts showing it would have a right to injunctive relief, the only form of relief it
`seeks. The SAC should be dismissed without further leave to amend.
`
`1
`
`WALMART’S NOTICE & MTN TO DISMISS SAC
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00754-MMC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00754-MMC Document 45 Filed 11/10/21 Page 7 of 34
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Finding that Greenpeace’s UCL claims were based on allegations that Walmart deceived
`consumers, this Court held that Greenpeace lacks standing and dismissed all three of its UCL causes
`of action. In response, Greenpeace has amended its complaint to drop the deceptive-practice cause of
`action and minimize use of the word “consumers.” That does not change the result.
`First, Greenpeace still does not allege UCL standing. Regardless of whether it claims to be
`targeting “deceptive,” “unlawful,” or “unfair” practices, Greenpeace still does not allege it “lost
`money or property as a result of” such practices. Despite the amendments, Greenpeace still alleges
`Walmart deceives consumers by using the term “recyclable.” But as the Court’s order recognized,
`Greenpeace cannot base a UCL claim on that alleged harm because any resulting economic loss
`would have been suffered by someone other than Greenpeace. Further, Greenpeace’s new focus on
`“substantiation” makes no difference. Whether harm was caused by a statement that was “deceptive”
`or one that was “unsubstantiated”—concepts Greenpeace does not distinguish—any loss suffered as
`a result would have been suffered by someone else. Greenpeace’s attempt to create standing by
`pointing to “losses” it chose to incur fundamentally conflicts with the amended UCL.
`Second, the “unlawful” and “unfair” claims—just like the “deceptive” claims before them—
`would fail even if Greenpeace had standing. Greenpeace’s focus on the “substantiation” requirement
`of Business & Professions Code section 17580 is misplaced. That law does not, as Greenpeace
`asserts, require advertisers to maintain records that substantiate recyclability claims. The Legislature
`recently passed a bill that would do so, but that law is not yet in effect, is not retroactive, and much
`of it does not apply until January 2024 at the earliest. Even if the substantiation requirement did
`apply, Greenpeace does not allege facts showing Walmart violated it, and there is no precedent for
`allowing a private plaintiff to use the UCL to enforce such requirements in any event. Beyond that,
`Greenpeace does not allege facts showing that representing the products as recyclable is unlawful or
`unfair. Greenpeace asks the Court to rewrite the FTC Green Guides, not apply them as written.
`Finally, Greenpeace again has not alleged facts showing that it is entitled to injunctive relief,
`the only kind of relief it seeks. For that reason as well, the Court should dismiss the Second
`Amended Complaint without further leave to amend.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`2
`
`WALMART’S NOTICE & MTN TO DISMISS SAC
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00754-MMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00754-MMC Document 45 Filed 11/10/21 Page 8 of 34
`
`FACTS ALLEGED
`The Second Amended Complaint is not materially different from the complaint this Court
`dismissed. See Greenpeace, Inc. v. Walmart Inc., No. 3:21-cv-00754-MMC, 2021 WL 4267536
`(N.D. Cal. Sept. 20, 2021) (ECF No. 40). The complaints’ introductory paragraphs highlight this:
` Previously, Greenpeace alleged that as “consumers become increasingly aware of plastic
`pollution, they are increasingly susceptible to marketing claims” that plastic products
`are recyclable, claims Walmart allegedly makes “[s]eeking to take advantage of
`consumers’ concerns....”
` Now, Greenpeace alleges that as “people are becoming more environmentally conscious”
`about plastic pollution, manufacturers are increasingly “labeling [plastic] products as
`recyclable,” claims Walmart allegedly makes “[s]eeking to take advantage of people’s
`concerns....”
`First Am. Compl. ¶ 1, Second Am. Compl. ¶ 1 (emphases added). Comparing the two complaints
`yields many similar examples. This is the same theory as before. Greenpeace now emphasizes its
`allegation that Walmart cannot “substantiate” whether products are recyclable, but this allegation is
`also nothing new. See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 32, 40, 54; SAC ¶¶ 1, 2, 4–6, 36, 50. And again, the change in
`terminology does not change the nature of the case, which is still founded on the contention that
`Walmart is deceiving consumers. Compare, e.g., FAC ¶ 51 (alleging that “[i]n its haste to lure
`customers,” Walmart makes recyclability “claims that are false, misleading, and deceptive”) with
`SAC ¶ 50 (alleging that “[i]n its haste to lure customers,” Walmart makes recyclability
`“representations” that are “unsubstantiated”).
`Greenpeace still has not identified a single consumer who was deceived, however, or pleaded
`any facts specifying how or when any particular consumer might have been deceived. As in the
`FAC, Greenpeace does not contend the “recyclable” representation is literally false. It contends the
`representation is misleading because third parties do not recycle the products often enough. That is,
`Greenpeace alleges the products are “not in fact recyclable” because (1) some people may lack
`“access to recycling programs” that accept these products; (2) the products cannot be separated and
`sorted correctly by recycling facilities; and (3) there are no “end markets” for reusing or converting
`the products. SAC ¶ 2.
`Greenpeace has never alleged that Walmart had anything to do with these market conditions.
`Rather, Greenpeace attributes low recycling rates partly to increased production of new plastics by
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`3
`
`WALMART’S NOTICE & MTN TO DISMISS SAC
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00754-MMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00754-MMC Document 45 Filed 11/10/21 Page 9 of 34
`
`“major oil and natural gas companies,” causing prices to fall to the point that recycled plastics are no
`longer competitive. SAC ¶ 45. As a result, recycling facilities no longer have an incentive to recycle
`plastic because there are “almost no buyers” for the recycled products. Id. Greenpeace also attributes
`the problem to China’s decision to sharply limit its import of recyclable materials. Id. ¶¶ 47–48. This
`policy took effect in January 2018, allegedly causing China’s plastic imports to drop by 99 percent.
`Id. ¶ 48 & n.41.1 For this reason, too, “[r]ecycling companies can no longer sell many types of used
`plastic at prices that cover their transportation and processing costs, providing them with no
`incentive to do so.” Id. ¶ 48. Again, Greenpeace does not allege that these issues are Walmart’s fault.
`Greenpeace asserts only that because Walmart is “aware of peoples’ [sic] interests in protecting the
`environment,” it has “increased its advertising and labeling of Products as recyclable,” despite the
`“widespread acknowledgement that end markets for plastic waste have been shrinking....” Id. ¶ 50.
`The SAC still does not allege any facts that show what Walmart might have known about these
`market conditions at any particular time. After all, if market forces dictate recycling rates as
`Greenpeace alleges, then those rates will fluctuate constantly.2 The SAC still alleges no facts to
`show what Walmart might have known or when.
`Though the SAC again alleges deception, it still does not specify exactly which products’
`labels are allegedly deceptive. It targets all products (A) sold under Walmart’s private-label brands,
`(B) labeled as “recyclable,” and (C) “made from plastics #3–7 or unidentified plastic” or packaged in
`any plastic shrink sleeve. SAC ¶ 2. It provides two “non-exclusive” lists of some of the enormous
`number of brands and products this definition would include. See id. nn. 3 & 4. The phrase “plastics
`#3–7” refers to the practice of describing types of plastic by number. See id. ¶¶ 43–44. Greenpeace is
`not targeting plastics #1 and 2, which it describes as “the most recyclable,” though it also alleges
`
`1 Greenpeace alleges China “announced” the National Sword Policy in February 2017 and that
`“[o]ne year after China’s National Sword Policy,” its plastics imports dropped by 99 percent. SAC ¶
`48. As Greenpeace’s sources clarify, whenever the policy was announced, it did not take effect (was
`not “instituted” or “enacted”) until January 2018. See id. n. 41 (citing and linking to sources).
`2 For example, Greenpeace’s sources state that after China’s policy took effect in January 2018,
`other countries increased their plastics imports, and the market responded in other ways. See Cheryl
`Katz, “Piling Up: How China’s Ban on Importing Waste Has Stalled Global Recycling,” Yale Env.
`360 (Mar. 7, 2019) (cited at SAC ¶ 48 n.41). For this and other reasons, “[w]hether China’s ban
`leads to increased plastic pollution in the environment remains to be seen,” and “if proper
`alternatives are found, plastic pollution could actually decrease.” Id.
`4
`WALMART’S NOTICE & MTN TO DISMISS SAC
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00754-MMC
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00754-MMC Document 45 Filed 11/10/21 Page 10 of 34
`
`those plastics are recycled at rates as low as 13 percent. Id. ¶ 44. Greenpeace targets only plastics
`#3–7, alleging these are “rarely, if ever recycled.” Id.
`The complaint includes images of the labels of only a few of these products. SAC ¶¶ 51, 56,
`58, 60. It does not allege when these particular images were taken. Three of the labels bear a
`disclaimer telling consumers they should “Check Locally” to determine recyclability because the
`products are “[n]ot recycled in all communities.” Id. ¶¶ 51, 56, 58. All the labels direct consumers to
`other sources of
`information about
`recycling,
`including Walmart’s own website and
`www.how2recycle.info. Both sites contain information about recyclability, what the label claims are
`intended to convey, some of the limitations on recycling programs, and whether particular materials
`can be recycled in particular communities and if so, where. See, e.g., https://how2recycle.info/check-
`locally (last visited Nov. 9, 2021) (providing links that allow consumers to search for local recycling
`information by zip code and material type). Greenpeace does not allege which if any particular
`communities’ recycling programs are deficient.
`In line with its new emphasis on an allegedly “unlawful practice,” Greenpeace has expanded
`certain allegations about the FTC’s Green Guides (16 C.F.R. § 260.1 et seq.) and California’s
`Environmental Marketing Claims Act (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17580). See, e.g., SAC ¶¶ 3–5, 35–
`36, 68–70, 78–80. The basic argument remains the same as before: that the term “recyclable” is
`misleading according to the Green Guides standard. But Greenpeace’s argument radically
`reinterprets those Guides. According to the Guides, a product or package is recyclable, and can be
`labeled as such, if it “can be collected, separated, or otherwise recovered from the waste stream
`through an established recycling program for reuse or use in manufacturing or assembling another
`item.” 16 C.F.R. § 260.12(a) (emphasis added). Greenpeace does not allege the products and
`packaging it targets cannot be collected, separated, or otherwise recovered by recycling facilities. It
`alleges that, at the moment—and because of market forces outside of Walmart’s control—they are
`not being recycled at acceptable rates by recycling facilities, or that it may not be profitable for those
`facilities to accept them. It does not allege they cannot be recycled.
`Beyond that, the Green Guides standard is based on access to recycling facilities, not a
`percentage of what those facilities recycle. The Guides allow marketers to make recyclable claims,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`5
`
`WALMART’S NOTICE & MTN TO DISMISS SAC
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00754-MMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00754-MMC Document 45 Filed 11/10/21 Page 11 of 34
`
`without limitation, if at least 60% of targeted customers have access to facilities that can recycle the
`item at issue. 16 C.F.R. § 260.12(b)(1). The Guides tell marketers to qualify recyclable claims—for
`example, by saying “this product may not be recyclable in your area”—if less than 60% of targeted
`customers have access to such facilities. Id. § 260.12(b)(2). Greenpeace does not allege that all
`California consumers lack access to recycling facilities that accept the products for recycling and are
`capable of recycling them, nor does it identify any particular community that lacks such access.
`Instead, Greenpeace’s argument hinges on reports that some recycling facilities are failing to recycle
`plastic products and packaging they accept because of allegedly decreasing market demand for
`certain types of recycled plastic.
`Many of the amended allegations assert that the EMCA and Green Guides require advertisers
`to maintain information that substantiates their marketing claims. See SAC ¶¶ 3–5, 13, 15, 16, 17,
`25, 35–36, 64–65. Greenpeace has rewritten the “unlawful practice” cause of action to minimize
`references to deception; it now alleges Walmart broke the law by failing to maintain records
`necessary to substantiate the allegedly deceptive claims. Compare FAC ¶¶ 76–84 (alleging
`violations of 15 U.S.C. § 45 (the FTC Act), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500, and Cal. Bus. & Prof.
`Code § 17580.5) with SAC ¶¶ 66–74 (alleging violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17580). It has
`rewritten the “unfair practice” cause of action in a similar way. Id. ¶¶ 75–84.
`Greenpeace alleges it has asked Walmart “on numerous occasions” to “substantiate” that the
`products are recyclable, but does not make clear what it means. SAC ¶¶ 5, 70. It does not allege it
`ever made some sort of formal demand for “substantiation” (the cited authorities set forth no specific
`procedures in any event). Elsewhere it refers to a survey it sent to companies including Walmart (id.
`¶ 15), emails it sent discussing “issues related to ... unsubstantiated recycling representations” (id. ¶¶
`16, 25), and a “pre-suit demand” in August 2020 “informing [Walmart] that its Products are not
`recyclable” (id. ¶ 70). It complains that Walmart has not produced “documentation in written form”
`or “competent and reliable scientific evidence” substantiating its claims. Id. ¶ 5; see also id. ¶¶ 15
`(alleging Walmart’s responses to Greenpeace’s survey “did not substantiate that the Products are
`recyclable”). The SAC does not specify what records Greenpeace believes Walmart was legally
`required to produce or what records would have satisfied Greenpeace had Walmart produced them.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`6
`
`WALMART’S NOTICE & MTN TO DISMISS SAC
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00754-MMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00754-MMC Document 45 Filed 11/10/21 Page 12 of 34
`
`Few of Greenpeace’s amendments relate to the reason the Court dismissed the FAC: the
`failure to plead facts showing Greenpeace “lost money or property as a result of” the alleged
`misconduct. As before, Greenpeace does not allege it was misled by the allegedly deceptive labels.
`Greenpeace contends it was harmed because it decided to focus on Walmart’s “recyclable” claims as
`part of its organizational mission to protect the environment, and, to do so, “spent” or “diverted”
`staff time and effort that might otherwise have been devoted to something else. SAC ¶¶ 7, 26
`(alleging frustration of Greenpeace’s “mission” or “purpose”); 13–26 (describing expenditures
`Greenpeace allegedly made). Most of the amendments on this issue involve adding the words
`“substantiated” or “unsubstantiated,” or using these to replace references to deception. For example,
`Greenpeace now alleges not that it diverted resources to determine whether Walmart was making
`false claims, but that it diverted resources to “determine whether [Walmart] could substantiate” the
`claims. See, e.g., SAC ¶ 16. It alleges these resources also represent something it “lost ... as a result”
`of Walmart’s actions.
`As before, Greenpeace seeks only injunctive relief. It has dropped the specific demand that
`the Court order a “corrective advertising and information campaign,” though it still asks the Court to
`“implement whatever measures are necessary” to remedy the alleged misconduct. SAC at p. 42
`(prayer for relief). The only specific injunctive relief Greenpeace demands is that the Court order
`Walmart to “substantiate the validity of [its] recycling representations” and/or enjoin it from
`“making unsubstantiated recycling representations.” Id.
`LEGAL STANDARD
`A complaint must provide “fair notice” of the plaintiff’s claims and the grounds on which
`they rest, as well as enough facts to set forth a plausible claim for relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a);
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
`(2007). Labels, conclusions, and recitations of legal elements are not “facts” and need not be
`accepted as true. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678–79; Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. Any claims grounded in
`fraud must also be pleaded with particularity. Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b); Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567
`F.3d 1120, 1125–26 (9th Cir. 2009); see Nguyen v. Endologix, Inc., 962 F.3d 405, 415 (9th Cir.
`2020) (claims grounded in fraud must comply with Rule 8 and Rule 9(b)).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`7
`
`WALMART’S NOTICE & MTN TO DISMISS SAC
`Case No. 3:21-cv-00754-MMC
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-00754-MMC Document 45 Filed 11/10/21 Page 13 of 34
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`Greenpeace Still Does Not Allege Facts Showing It “Lost Money or Property as a Result
`of” the Alleged Misconduct, No Matter How It Characterizes Its Claims.
`UCL actions may be brought only by a person who “has lost money or property as a result
`of” the defendant’s alleged conduct. Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Ct., 51 Cal. 4th 310, 320–21 (2011);
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204. “As a result of” means “caused by,” and when a UCL claim is
`grounded in fraud, that means actual reliance. Kwikset, 51 Cal. 4th at 326; Greenpeace, 2021 WL
`4267536, at *1. These requirements stem from the 2004 amendments to the UCL, which eliminated
`the much-abused ability to bring UCL actions on behalf of the “general public.” See Kwikset, 51 Cal.
`4th at 317 (noting amendments were meant “to eliminate standing for those who have not engaged in
`any business dealings with would-be defendants..