Case 3:21-cv-04644-LB Document 1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 1 of 28
`
`
`
`GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
`MARIE A. MCCRARY (Bar No. 262670)
`marie@gutridesafier.com
`SETH A. SAFIER (Bar No. 197427)
`seth@gutridesafier.com
`100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 639-9090
`Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`SIERRA CLUB,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`THE COCA-COLA COMPANY and
`BLUETRITON BRANDS, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.: ____________
`
`COMPLAINT FOR UNFAIR BUSINESS
`PRACTICES AND VIOLATION OF THE
`ENVIRONMENTAL MARKETING
`CLAIMS ACT
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04644-LB Document 1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 2 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Sierra Club, by and through its counsel, brings this Complaint against
`
`Defendants The Coca-Cola Company and BlueTriton Brands, Inc. (formerly known as Nestle
`
`Waters North America, Inc.). The following allegations are based upon information and belief,
`
`including the investigation of Plaintiff’s counsel, unless stated otherwise.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This Complaint seeks to remedy Defendants’ unlawful, unfair, and deceptive
`
`business practices with respect to the advertising, marketing, and sale of water bottled in single-
`
`use plastic bottles labeled as “100% Recyclable.”
`2.
`Americans consume water from disposable plastic bottles at a rate of more than
`70 million bottles each day.1 Defendants produce more than 100 billion single-use plastic bottles
`every year – or 3,400 a second.2 Over 60 million plastic bottles end up in landfills or incinerators
`each day.3 Incineration of plastic releases large quantities of greenhouse gases and toxic air
`emissions. Over 12 million tons of plastic enters the ocean each year.4 As consumers have
`become increasingly aware of the problems associated with plastic pollution, many consumers
`
`actively seek to purchase products that are either compostable or recyclable to divert such waste
`
`from waterways, oceans, their communities, landfills, and incinerators.
`3.
`
`The plastic waste problem was exacerbated in 2018 when China implemented a
`
`plastic recycling import ban on most plastic waste exported from the United States, which it
`
`deemed the “National Sword” policy. The National Sword policy has permanently changed how
`
`the United States processes recycling. Up until 2018, China was the primary export market for
`
`
`1 Pat Franklin, Down the Drain, https://www.container-recycling.org/assets/pdfs/media/2006-5-
`WMW-DownDrain.pdf (last accessed January 20, 2021).
`2 Sandra Laville and Matthew Taylor, A million bottles a minute: world’s plastic binge ‘as
`dangerous as climate change’ (June 28, 2017),
`https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/28/a-million-a-minute-worlds-plastic-
`bottle-binge-as-dangerous-as-climate-change (last accessed January 20, 2021)
`3 Id.
`4 Nick Young, How does plastic end up the ocean?, https://www.greenpeace.org/new-
`zealand/story/how-does-plastic-end-up-in-the-ocean/ (last accessed January 20, 2021).
`
`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-
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04644-LB Document 1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 3 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`plastic waste. In the wake of National Sword, municipalities have been forced to find new ways
`
`to manage plastic recycling. In most cases, they have been forced to burn or incinerate plastics
`
`because there is no longer a foreign market for the overwhelming majority of plastic sent for
`
`recycling.
`4.
`
`In the wake of National Sword, environmental organizations such as the Sierra
`
`Club and Greenpeace sought to inform the public that reusable bottles are the only truly
`
`sustainable choice. Concerned about the growing salience of this message and seeking to
`
`reassure the public about the sustainability of single-use plastics—Defendants and other plastic
`
`bottlers countered with the “Every Bottle Back” initiative. Central to this marketing campaign is
`
`the claim “100% Recyclable,” which Defendants affix to their single-use plastic water bottles.
`
`However, the plastic bottles are not “100% Recyclable” because: (i) the polypropylene (“PP”)
`
`bottle caps and the biaxially oriented polypropylene (“BOPP”) plastic labels on the bottles are
`
`not recyclable and cannot be processed into usable material; (ii) at least 28% of the polyethylene
`
`terephthalate (“PET”) bottles and high-density polyethylene (“HDPE”) bottle caps sent to
`
`recycling centers are lost in processing or are contaminated and thus end up in landfills or are
`
`burned; and (iii) domestic recycling facilities only have the capacity to process approximately
`
`22.5% of the PET and HDPE consumed in the United States.
`5.
`
`Defendants’ continued use of misleading and deceptive recyclability claims on
`
`their products serves to defraud the public about plastic water bottles. It falsely informs
`
`consumers that they are making an environmentally responsible choice when they purchase and
`
`dispose of Defendants’ plastic water bottles in a municipal recycling bin. In truth, Defendants’
`
`single-use plastics are damaging the environment even when consumers properly dispose of the
`
`bottles in a recycling bin. If consumers knew the truth, they could make more informed
`
`decisions about consuming products that are truly sustainable. Defendants’ representations that
`
`the Products are recyclable are material, false, misleading, and likely to deceive members of the
`
`public. These representations also violate California’s legislatively declared policy against
`
`misrepresenting the environmental attributes of products.
`6.
`
`This action seeks an injunction precluding the sale of the plastic bottled water
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04644-LB Document 1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 4 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`within a reasonable time after entry of judgment, unless the products’ packaging and marketing
`
`are modified to remove the “100% Recyclable” misrepresentation and to disclose the omitted
`
`facts about their true recyclability. If an injunction is not granted, Plaintiff will suffer irreparable
`
`injury because it will continue to spend money, staff time and other organizational resources to
`
`combat Defendants’ false and misleading representations in California and to inform the public
`
`that the Products are not recyclable in California. In addition, plastic pollution caused by
`
`Defendants’ sale of the Products in California and the resulting harms to California waters,
`
`coasts, communities, and marine life will continue to negatively impact Plaintiff’s efforts to
`
`protect these critical resources.
`
`PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Sierra Club (“Plaintiff” or the “Sierra Club “) was founded in 1892 and is
`
`the nation’s oldest grassroots environmental organization. The Sierra Club is incorporated in
`
`California, and has its headquarters in Oakland, California. It has more than 784,000 members
`
`nationwide. The Sierra Club’s mission is “[t]o explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the
`
`earth; to practice and promote the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources; to
`
`educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human
`
`environment; and to use all lawful means to carry out those objectives.” Consistent with its
`
`mission, the Sierra Club is dedicated to the protection and preservation of environment,
`
`including but not limited to, ending the use of single-use plastics and combatting false and
`
`misleading environmental claims on consumer goods (i.e. greenwashing).
`8.
`
`The Sierra Club has standing to bring this action because Defendants’
`
`misrepresentations regarding the environmental benefits of their Products by marketing and
`
`selling the Products as recyclable in California have frustrated the Sierra Club’s organizational
`
`mission to “protect the wild places of the earth” and to “educate and enlist humanity to protect
`
`… the natural and human environment.” Well before this litigation was initiated, the Sierra Club
`
`expended money, staff time, and diverted organizational resources in California in response to
`
`that frustration of purpose (described in greater detail infra). The Sierra Club’s diversion of
`
`resources to respond to Defendants’ misrepresentations regarding the recyclability of the
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04644-LB Document 1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 5 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`Products has caused the Sierra Club to postpone other projects that could advance the Sierra
`
`Club’s mission. Thus, the Sierra Club has lost money or property and has suffered an injury in
`
`fact due to Defendants’ actions of using false, misleading and deceptive labels regarding the
`
`recyclability of its Products in California.
`9.
`
`Defendant The Coca-Cola Company (“Coca-Cola”) is a corporation organized
`
`and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, having its principal place of business in
`
`Atlanta, Georgia.
`10.
`
`Defendant BlueTriton Brands, Inc. (“Nestle”) is a corporation organized and
`
`existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, having its principal place of business in
`
`Stamford, Connecticut. BlueTriton Brands, Inc. is the successor entity to Nestle Waters North
`
`America, Inc.
`11.
`
`The Parties identified in paragraphs 9-10 of this Complaint are collectively
`
`referred to hereafter as “Defendants.”
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1332(a). The aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest
`
`and costs; and there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and Defendants.
`13.
`
`This action is brought by Plaintiff pursuant, inter alia, to the California Business
`
`and Professions Code, section 17200, et seq. Plaintiff and Defendants are “persons” within the
`
`meaning of the California Business and Professions Code, section 17201.
`14.
`
`The injuries, damages and/or harm upon which this action is based occurred in or
`
`arose out of activities engaged in by Defendants within, affecting, and emanating from, the State
`
`of California. Defendants regularly conduct and/or solicit business in, engage in other persistent
`
`courses of conduct in, and/or derive substantial revenue from products provided to persons in the
`
`State of California. Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in substantial and
`
`continuous business practices in the State of California, including within this District.
`15.
`
`The claims in this case arise out of Defendants’ California-related activities.
`
`Defendants market and sell the Products in California to California consumers. While the
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04644-LB Document 1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 6 of 28
`
`
`
`Products are marketed and sold in California by Defendants, the Products are not 100%
`
`recyclable in California. The Sierra Club has spent significant money, staff time, and other
`
`organizational resources in California to counter Defendants’ false and misleading recyclability
`
`representations. Thus, the conduct alleged herein arises out of Defendants’ activities in
`
`California.
`16.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the state of
`
`California, including within this District.
`17.
`
`Plaintiff accordingly alleges that jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court.
`
`SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
`
`
`
`(1) Defendants and the Products at Issue
`18.
`
`Coca-Cola manufacturers, markets, and sells beverages, including bottled water,
`
`in the United States under several brand names, including Dasani.
`19.
`
`Nestle manufacturers, markets, and sells beverages, including bottled water, in the
`
`United States under several brand names, including Arrowhead, Poland Springs, Ozarka, and
`
`Deer Park.
`20.
`
`The following brands of bottled water are referred to herein as the “Products”:
`
`Dasani, Arrowhead, Poland Springs, Ozarka, and Deer Park.
`21.
`
`Each of the Products have three basic plastic components: the bottle, the bottle
`
`cap, and the label that is wrapped around the bottle. The bottles are made of polyethylene
`
`terephthalate (PET, #1 plastic). The Products’ bottle caps are made of polypropylene (PP, # 5
`
`plastic) or high-density polyethylene (HDPE, #2 plastic). The Products’ labels are made from
`
`biaxially oriented polypropylene (BOPP), a form of PP.
`22.
`
`Throughout the class period, Defendants have consistently marketed on the
`
`Products’ packages that they are “100% Recyclable” as shown in the following images.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`COMPLAINT
`
`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-04644-LB Document 1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 7 of 28
`
`
`
`23.
`
`Dasani:
`
`
`24.
`
`Arrowhead:
`
`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-
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04644-LB Document 1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 8 of 28
`
`
`
`25.
`
`Poland Springs:
`
`26.
`
`Ozarka:
`
`-8-
`COMPLAINT
`
`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-04644-LB Document 1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 9 of 28
`
`
`
`27.
`
`Deer Park:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(2) Defendants’ Representations that the Products Are “100% Recyclable” Are
`
`False
`28.
`
`Pursuant to California law, recycling is “the process of collecting, sorting,
`
`cleansing, treating, and reconstituting materials that would otherwise become solid waste, and
`
`returning them to the economic mainstream in the form of raw material for new, reused, or
`
`reconstituted products which meet the quality standards necessary to be used in the
`
`marketplace.” Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 40180. Thus, “recyclable” products must, if discarded into a
`
`recycling bin, be: (i) accepted for collection by a recycling facility; and (ii) processed for reuse
`
`or use in manufacturing another item.
`29.
`
`In California, after plastic bottles, such as the Products, are discarded into a
`
`recycling bin, the bottles are sent to a Materials Recovery Facility (“MRF”). There are
`
`approximately 365 MRFs in the United States (75 of which operate in California). A typical
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04644-LB Document 1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 10 of 28
`
`
`
`MRF first sorts the plastic bottles based on color and, sometimes, size. At this point, the plastic
`
`bottles, bottle caps and labels are comingled. Once sorted, the comingled plastic is typically next
`
`shredded into smaller pieces and sent to a wash station. During the washing phase, the comingled
`
`shredded plastic is separated via a sink float separation tank, where the PET plastic, which is
`
`denser than water, sinks and the HDPE and PP plastics, which are less dense than water, float.
`
`Finally, the separated shredded plastic is then processed into “clean flake” material or plastic
`
`resin for use in manufacturing or assembling another item.
`30.
`
`PET and HDPE are widely considered to be the “most recyclable” forms of
`
`plastic. However, the most recent available data, which was published in a study by Greenpeace,
`
`indicates that as of 2017, United States domestic MRFs only have the capacity to process into
`
`plastic resin approximately: (i) 22.5% of the total post-consumer PET plastic waste generated;
`and (ii) 12% of the total post-consumer HDPE plastic waste generated.5 Additionally, due to
`contamination and processing losses, not all PET and HDPE material that is processed by MRFs
`is actually converted into “clean flake” for reuse.6 About a third of the collected PET and HDPE
`material processed by MRFs is not converted into “clean flake,” and is instead, landfilled or
`incinerated.7 Accordingly, the Products’ PET bottles and HDPE bottle caps are not “100%
`Recyclable” because: (i) the United States lacks the capacity to process 77.5% of all PET and
`
`88% of all HDPE plastic waste generated; and (ii) of the plastic that is processed by MRFs, only
`
`about 70% of the PET and HDPE is converted into clean flakes for reuse.
`31.
`
`PP and BOPP plastics, which are the material used to make the Products’ bottle
`
`caps and film labels, respectively, are widely considered to be the least recyclable plastics. These
`
`plastics are typically collected by MRFs for #3-7 mixed bails which require further processing.
`
`
`5 Greenpeace, Circular Claims Fall Flat: Comprehensive U.S. Survey of Plastic Recyclability,
`https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Greenpeace-Report-Circular-
`Claims-Fall-Flat.pdf (last accessed December 18, 2020); at Section 7.2.2.
`6 Jan Dell, Six Times More Plastic Waste is Burned in U.S. than is Recycled (April 30, 2020),
`https://www.plasticpollutioncoalition.org/blog/2019/4/29/six-times-more-plastic-waste-is-
`burned-in-us-than-is-recycled (last accessed June 10, 2021).
`7 Id.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04644-LB Document 1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 11 of 28
`
`
`
`However, “the economics [of processing those bails] have proven insurmountable.”8 Prior to
`2018, MRFs in the United States exported #3-7 mixed bails, primarily, to China. However, on
`
`January 1, 2018, China enacted the National Sword policy which limits plastic waste imports.
`
`There is, however, minimal demand, value, and processing capacity for them in the United
`
`States. Thus, mixed plastic #3-7 bales which were “previously exported to China now have
`
`negligible to negative value across the country and ‘cannot be effectively or efficiently recycled
`in the US.’”9 As a result, the majority of PP and BOPP sent to recycling facilities is incinerated,
`which releases large quantities of greenhouse gases and toxic air emissions. This is especially
`
`true of the Products’ BOPP labels which are completely unrecyclable because they are made of
`
`plastic film, which is difficult to sort and process and is typically treated as trash.
`32.
`
`Further, due to the availability of cheap raw materials to make “virgin plastic,”
`
`there is very little market demand for recycled PP and BOPP plastic. Using virgin plastic to
`
`package and make products is cheaper than other materials because virgin plastic is derived from
`
`oil and natural gas. Indeed, recognizing the market potential from plastic production, major oil
`
`and natural gas companies are increasingly integrating their operations to include production of
`
`plastic resins and products, which further drives down the price of “virgin plastic.” As a result,
`
`recycling facilities cannot afford the cost of breaking down and reconstituting recycled PP and
`
`BOPP plastic because there are almost no buyers of the resulting plastic, pellets, or scrap
`
`materials. Thus, the Products’ PP bottle caps and BOPP labels are not “100% Recyclable”
`
`because those materials are not processed into reusable material, and are instead, sent to
`
`incinerators or landfills.
`33.
`
`Even when plastic bottle lids are made of HDPE (#2) plastic instead of PP (#5), a
`
`significant portion of them are lost during the sorting process because they fall through disk
`
`screens during the initial sorting process at the MRF. As a result, most caps are not recyclable
`
`regardless of whether they are made from No. 2 or No. 5 plastic because they are too small to be
`
`efficiently sorted and processed.
`
`
`8 Supra, note 5, at Section 4.
`9 Id.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`-11-
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04644-LB Document 1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 12 of 28
`
`
`
`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) Defendants’ Marketing of the Products Violates California Public Policy and the
`
`Federal Trade Commission Green Guides
`34.
`
`The State of California has declared that “it is the public policy of the state that
`
`environmental marketing claims, whether explicit or implied, should be substantiated by
`
`competent and reliable evidence to prevent deceiving or misleading consumers about the
`
`environmental impact of plastic products.” Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 42355.5. The policy is based
`
`on the Legislature’s finding that “littered plastic products have caused and continue to cause
`
`significant environmental harm and have burdened local governments with significant
`
`environmental cleanup costs.” Id. § 42355.
`35.
`
`Additionally, the California Business and Professions Code § 17580.5 makes it
`
`“unlawful for any person to make any untruthful, deceptive, or misleading environmental
`
`marketing claim, whether explicit or implied.” Pursuant to that section, the term “environmental
`
`marketing claim” includes any claim contained in the Guides for Use of Environmental
`
`Marketing Claims published by the Federal Trade Commission (the “Green Guides”). Id.; see
`
`also 16 C.F.R. § 260.1, et seq. As detailed below, Defendants’ marketing of the Products as
`
`“100% Recyclable” violates several provisions of the FTC’s Green Guides.
`36.
`
`First, Defendants’ marketing of the Products as “100% Recyclable” violates the
`
`Green Guides provisions prohibiting the labeling of products as recyclable unless the products
`
`can actually be converted into reusable material. Section 260.12(a) of the Green Guides provides
`
`that it is “deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product or package is
`
`recyclable. A product or package should not be marketed as recyclable unless 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.” The Green Guides
`
`further explain that “[m]arketers should clearly and prominently qualify recyclable claims to the
`
`extent necessary to avoid deception about the availability of recycling programs and collection
`
`sites to consumers.” 16 C.F.R. § 260.12(b). “If recycling facilities are available to less than a
`
`substantial majority of consumers or communities where the item is sold, marketers should
`
`qualify all recyclable claims.”16 C.F.R. § 260.12(b)(1). Further “[i]f any component
`
`
`
`
`
`-12-
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04644-LB Document 1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 13 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`significantly limits the ability to recycle the item, any recyclable claim would be deceptive.” 16
`
`C.F.R. § 260.12(d). And in promulgating the current recycling definition, the FTC clarified that
`
`“[f]or a product to be called recyclable, there must be an established recycling program,
`
`municipal or private, through which the product will be converted into, or used in, another
`
`product or package.” See 63 Fed. Reg. 84, 11 24247 (May 1, 1998) (emphasis added). As the
`
`FTC has stated, “while a product may be technically recyclable, if a program is not available
`
`allowing consumers to recycle the product, there is no real value to consumers.” Id., at 24243.
`37.
`
`In promulgating the most recent version of the Green Guides, the FTC stated
`
`(under the heading “Packages Collected for Public Policy Reasons but Not Recycled”), “[t]he
`
`Commission agrees that unqualified recyclable claims for categories of products that municipal
`
`recycling programs collect, but do not actually recycle, may be deceptive. To make a non-
`
`deceptive unqualified claim, a marketer should substantiate that a substantial majority of
`
`consumers or communities have access to facilities that will actually recycle, not accept and
`
`ultimately discard, the product. As part of this analysis, a marketer should not assume that
`
`consumers or communities have access to a particular recycling program merely because the
`
`program will accept a product.” The California Public Resources Code similarly defines
`
`recycling as “the process of collecting, sorting, cleansing, treating, and reconstituting materials
`
`that would otherwise become solid waste, and returning them to the economic mainstream in the
`
`form of raw material for new, reused, or reconstituted products which meet the quality standards
`
`necessary to be used in the marketplace.” Id. § 40180.
`38.
`
`Defendants’ marketing of the Products as “100% Recyclable” violates these
`
`provisions of the Green Guides because it is false that 100% of the Products 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. Although the Products
`
`may be accepted for recycling by some curbside programs, MRFs do not have the capacity to: (i)
`
`process the Products’ PP bottle caps and BOPP labels into reusable material because there is no
`
`end market to do so; (ii) convert all plastic bottle material processed into reusable material
`
`because 28% of the material is contaminated or lost during processing and must be landfilled or
`
`
`
`
`
`-13-
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04644-LB Document 1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 14 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`incinerated; and (iii) process all plastic bottles used in the United States into reusable material
`
`such that over 75% of PET and HDPE plastics consumed must be landfilled or incinerated;
`39.
`
`Defendants’ marketing of the Products as “100% Recyclable” also violates the
`
`Green Guide provisions regarding products that cannot be recycled in their entirety. Section
`
`260.12(c) of the Green Guides provides that “Marketers can make unqualified recyclable claims
`
`for a product or package if the entire product or package, excluding minor incidental
`
`components, is recyclable. For items that are partially made of recyclable components, marketers
`
`should clearly and prominently qualify the recyclable claim to avoid deception about which
`
`portions are recyclable.” Similarly, Section 260.3(b) of the Green Guides requires an
`
`environmental marketing claim to “specify whether it refers to the product, the product’s
`
`packaging, a service, or just to a portion of the product, package, or service.” 16 C.F.R. §
`
`260.3(b). Defendants’ “100% Recyclable” representation violates this standard of the Green
`
`Guides because it fails to specify whether it refers to the bottles, the bottle caps, or the label. The
`
`caps and the labels are not an incidental component, and even if they were, the fact that they are
`
`not recyclable makes the claim “100% Recyclable” false and misleading.
`40.
`
`Further, the Green Guides require marketers to support their claim with a
`
`reasonable basis before they make the claims. 16 CFR § 260.2 (“Marketers must ensure that all
`
`reasonable interpretations of their claims are truthful, not misleading, and supported by a
`
`reasonable basis before they make the claims.”). “[A] firm's failure to possess and rely upon a
`
`reasonable basis for objective claims constitutes an unfair and deceptive act or practice in
`
`violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act.” See FTC Policy Statement
`
`Regarding Advertising Substantiation, 104 FTC 839 (1984) (cited by 16 CFR §
`
`260.2). Defendants do not possess information sufficient to support their claims that the Products
`
`are ”100% Recyclable.”
`
`(4) Consumer Demand for “100% Recyclable” Products and Defendants’ Use of
`
`Coordinated Marketing Campaigns, including the “Every Bottle Back Initiative,” to
`
`Defraud the Public
`41.
`
`Recent investigations into the proliferation of plastic pollution have revealed that
`
`
`
`
`
`-14-
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04644-LB Document 1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 15 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`for decades the plastic industry sold the public on the myth “that the majority of plastic could be,
`
`and would be, recycled – all while making billions of dollars selling the world new plastic.” On
`
`September 11, 2020, National Public Radio (“NPR”) published an investigation illustrating the
`
`plastic industry’s decades-long awareness that recycling would not keep plastic products or
`packaging out of landfills, incinerators, communities, or the natural environment.10 In a 1974
`speech, one industry insider stated “there is serious doubt that [recycling plastic] can ever be
`made viable on an economic basis.”11 Larry Thomas, former president of the Society of the
`Plastic Industry (known today as the Plastics Industry Association), told NPR that “if the public
`
`thinks that recycling is working, then they are not going to be as concerned about the
`environment.”12 The NPR investigative report details the length and expense that the plastics
`industry went to deceive consumers that plastic was easily recyclable, despite knowledge that the
`
`cost of recycling would never be economical.
`42.
`
`Beverage manufacturers, including Defendants, have supported these efforts for
`
`years. For example, until recently, Coca-Cola was a major financial supporter of the Plastics
`
`Industry Association (PLASTICS). PLASTICS is a trade association that has lobbied against
`
`bans on single-use plastic, arguing that the problem of plastic waste is “behavioral rather than [a]
`
`material issue” because single-use plastics are 100% Recyclable. Though PLASTICS keeps its
`
`membership rolls secret, major companies have been outed over the years for their support of the
`
`organization.
`43.
`
`In 2018, after the implementation of National Sword, environmental organizations
`
`such as the Sierra Club and Greenpeace began applying greater pressure to the plastics industry
`
`through public information campaigns. The central message was that the recycling system is
`
`broken and that reuse was the only truly sustainable option. For example, a January 19, 2018
`
`press release on the Greenpeace website titled Greenpeace slams Coca-Cola plastic
`
`
`10 Lara Sullivan, How Big Oil Misled The Public Into Believing Plastic Would be Recycled,
`NPR.ORG (Sep. 11, 2020, 5:00 a.m.), https://www.npr.org/2020/09/11/897692090/how-big-
`oilmisled-the-public-into-believing-plastic-would-be-recycled (last accessed Dec. 7, 2020).
`11 Id.
`12 Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`-15-
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-04644-LB Document 1 Filed 06/16/21 Page 16 of 28
`
`
`
`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
`
`announcement as ‘dodging the main issue’ stated:
`
`Greenpeace is urging Coca Cola to make firm commitments to cut its plastic production
`by investing in alternatives to single-use plastic bottles, including committing to expand
`its use of new delivery methods such as Freestyle dispensers and self-serve water stations
`with reusable containers.13
`44.
`On July 23, 2019, in response to pressure from the Sierra Club and similar
`
`organizations, Coca-Cola started a marketing counter-offensive. It began by announcing its “plan
`to end their memberships with the Plastics Industry Association.”14
`45.
`On October 29, 201