A Northern District of California judge issued a sweeping dismissal of a microplastics class action that would have lowered the bar on the sufficiency of allegations of potential hazards from microplastics. In her order, the court rejected plaintiffs’ attempts to hold defendants liable for violating California consumer protection laws by allegedly deceiving consumers about the potential existence of microplastics in infant bottles and sippy cups. Rather, the court insisted that plaintiffs must assert that microplastics present “an unreasonable safety hazard” based on the reasonably anticipated use of the products themselves.Cortez v. Handi-Craft Co., Inc., No. 24-3782 (N.D. Cal., filed April 29, 2025).

The plaintiffs claimed that by portraying infant bottles and sippy cups as safe for use by infants and young children, even referring to them as “#1 Pediatrician Recommended,” Handi-Craft Company had participated in a “campaign of reckless deception.” When used as intended, the plaintiffs alleged the bottles and cups leached hazardous microplastics into infants’ food and drink. The plaintiffs brought claims for violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL); violation of California’s False Advertising Law (FAL); violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); breach of warranty; and unjust enrichment. Handi-Craft subsequently filed a motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims without prejudice, granting plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.

The court dismissed the UCL, FAL and CLRA claims as to affirmative statements because the plaintiffs did not allege that they ever saw the products’ “BPA Free” and “#1 Pediatrician Recommended” labels. The court also generally dismissed the plaintiffs’ CLRA claim for failure to comply with the notice requirement of sending a demand letter to the defendant’s principal place of business within California.

The court dismissed the UCL, FAL and CLRA claims as to fraudulent omissions because the plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege an unreasonable safety hazard that the defendant therefore had a duty to disclose. Notably, the plaintiffs failed to identify a threshold at which microplastics exposure to children would become unreasonably unsafe. Additionally, insofar as plaintiffs suggested that no amount of microplastic exposure can be safe, the court held that such an expansive theory of harm would “impermissibly broaden the duty to disclose to any potential —and not just unreasonable—safety hazard.” The plaintiffs also failed to plausibly allege that the defendant had actual knowledge of the alleged risks of its products because the complaint lacked substantiated facts of exclusive knowledge. General industry knowledge of the alleged risks was lacking because the plaintiffs merely provided publicly available studies that did not reference defendant’s products and only had general conclusions about the potential health risks associated with microplastics.

The court dismissed the breach of warranty claim because the plaintiffs failed to allege they actually relied on the “BPA Free” and “#1 Pediatrician Recommended” labels. The court dismissed the unjust enrichment claim, as it was based on the same conduct as the statutory claims, and thus was subject to dismissal for the same reasons as the UCL, FAL and CLRA claims.

Also notably, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, concluding that they failed to plausibly allege actual and imminent injury. The court noted that while the plaintiffs alleged they wanted to repurchase the defendant’s products in the future, they also stated in their complaint that there was no safe level of microplastics. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ claims that they would repurchase were contradictory and implausible.

Ultimately, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their case on May 20, 2025, instead of amending their complaint. As the Cortez court’s opinion illustrates, plaintiffs who bring deceptive labeling microplastics cases should be prepared to allege actual reliance on any alleged unlawful labeling. The plaintiffs must also allege, with specific thresholds necessary to cause harm, how an alleged safety hazard was unreasonable, and be able to allege with substantiated facts that a defendant or the industry knew of the alleged unreasonable hazard. Absent these showings, microplastics cases that allege these types of claims face an uphill battle.

Read more in the full issue of Material Concerns: Legal Updates on Substances of Emerging Concern >>