Recent decisions demonstrate judicial skepticism toward claims premised on the alleged presence of microplastics in consumer products. As plaintiffs’ counsel attempt to expand traditional product liability and consumer protection doctrines into this emerging space, courts have required product-specific factual allegations and declined to impose liability for downstream product disposal by third parties. Alongside preemption (see California Microplastics Mislabeling Case Dismissed on Preemption Grounds), these rulings provide viable bases for dismissal, strengthening defenses for manufacturers and offering meaningful guidance for defense strategies in this evolving area of litigation.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency generally defines microplastics as plastic particles smaller than five millimeters that have been detected in a wide range of substances and environmental substrates such as food, beverages and human tissue. Though plaintiffs’ counsel have filed microplastics product liability cases, they have predominantly pursued theories rooted in other grounds, such as deceptive labeling and public nuisance. To date, these substitute theories have met limited success in court.
Pleading Standards and Product-Specific Claims
In Daly v. Wonderful Company, LLC, the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a proposed class action challenging a water bottle manufacturer’s use of “Natural Artesian Water.” Plaintiffs alleged the label was misleading because bottled water may contain microplastics. The court rejected the claim, emphasizing that plaintiffs relied on generalized studies involving different brands rather than testing or evidence specific to the water at issue. Absent product-specific studies, the allegations amounted to speculation and failed to plausibly allege deception or injury. The court underscored that generalized industry studies cannot substitute for concrete factual allegations tied to the product at issue.
Similarly, in Slowinski v. BlueTriton Brands, Inc., the same court dismissed claims alleging that another bottled water manufacturer’s use of “Natural Spring Water” was misleading due to the purported presence of trace microplastics. The court rejected plaintiffs’ allegations that defendants made a material misrepresentation by describing the water as “100% Natural,” concluding the label would not likely mislead a reasonable consumer, citing the pervasiveness and prevalence of microplastics elsewhere in the environment.
Federal Preemption
Federal preemption has also emerged as a powerful defense. In addition to ruling on misleading labels, the court in Slowinski determined that Congress vested the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with exclusive authority to define and regulate food and beverage labeling terms, including “spring water,” and the FDA’s definition does not address microplastics. By reaffirming FDA primacy, the court narrowed the scope for state-law labeling challenges and strengthened manufacturers’ preemption defenses against similar suits. The United States District Court for the Central District of California later reached a comparable result in Bruno v. Bluetriton Brands, Inc. (see California Microplastics Mislabeling Case Dismissed on Preemption Grounds).
Lack of Causation or Duty
In People v. PepsiCo, Inc., the Supreme Court of Erie County, New York, granted defendants’ motion to dismiss a public nuisance and deceptive business practices action alleging that defendants’ single-use packaging contributed to plastic pollution in the Buffalo River watershed, harming public health, the environment and the public’s enjoyment of natural resources. The complaint alleged that defendants knew, or should have known, of environmental and health risks of plastics in their packaging, and that their public statements about plastics reduction were misleading. Though the complaint did not expressly plead “environmental tort,” public nuisance is recognized as an environmental tort in appropriate contexts, and in many respects the allegations were framed as such here. Defendants argued, among other things, they cannot be held liable for third-party disposal of lawful products and that no duty to warn arose because the plastic packaging was not shown to be defective or inherently dangerous.
The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding they cannot be held liable for plastic pollution caused by third-party disposal, and they had no duty to warn because the products have not been shown to be defective or harmful. Though appellate review may change the result, the case illustrates defenses available against public nuisance theories tied to microplastics pollution.
Key Takeaways
These decisions reflect judicial reluctance to advance microplastics litigation without concrete, product-linked scientific evidence. Generalized studies and broad allegations untethered to a particular product or misrepresentation have been rejected at the pleading stage. Courts have also deferred to the FDA’s regulatory authority over food and beverage labeling, suggesting that any changes in liability may result from legislative or regulatory action rather than from judicial interpretation.
Defendants can challenge deceptive labeling claims by demanding well-pleaded allegations, while invoking federal preemption to bar efforts to impose additional labeling requirements. Manufacturers may argue they cannot be liable for downstream third-party disposal of their products. Overall, these decisions provide a strong foundation to defend against microplastics claims in a variety of contexts and underscore the benefits of a proactive defense strategy.
Our Mass Torts and Industry-Wide Litigation Practice Group attorneys are following this issue and other important litigation issues throughout New York and the nation. Should you have questions on this or related matters, please contact attorney Abbie L. Eliasberg Fuchs at (212) 313-5408 and afuchs@harrisbeachmurtha.com; attorney Alexander Anolik at (212) 912-3502 and aanolik@harrisbeachmurtha.com; attorney Max A. Angstadt at
(212) 313-5493 and mangstadt@harrisbeachmurtha.com; attorney Erika T. Suazo at (212) 912-3511 and esuazo@harrisbeachmurtha.com; or the Harris Beach Murtha attorney with whom you most frequently work.
This alert is not a substitute for advice of counsel on specific legal issues.
Harris Beach Murtha’s lawyers and consultants practice from offices throughout Connecticut in Bantam, Hartford, New Haven and Stamford; New York State in Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, Ithaca, New York City, Niagara Falls, Rochester, Saratoga Springs, Syracuse, Long Island and White Plains; as well as in Boston, Massachusetts, and Newark, New Jersey.