Beverage giants face raft of deceptive marketing lawsuits in US
Three separate lawsuits filed against soft drinks beverage companies in Washington, DC, US, claim that the use of words like “sustainable” and “pure” on plastic bottles is deceptive and misleading marketing tactics, given the damage plastic pollution causes to human and environmental health.
PepsiCo, Fiji Water, and Danone all face lawsuits over their advertising claims. The Plastic Pollution Coalition (PPC), a project of Earth Island Institute, recently filed a complaint in D.C. against PepsiCo for violating the District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA).
On March 18, the same court denied Danone Waters of America’s motion to dismiss a similar lawsuit, also for false and deceptive marketing. These developments follow the January 31, filing of a similar complaint by PPC against The Wonderful Company and FIJI Water, makers of Fiji Water bottled water.
Julia Cohen, co-founder and managing director of PPC, says: “Makers of bottled water that describe their products as ‘pure’ and their business practices as ‘sustainable’ are using deceptive, manipulative marketing tactics — because these statements are inherently untrue.”
“The facts are: Plastic pollutes water and our bodies, plastic is unhealthy for people and the planet, and recycling cannot solve the plastic pollution crisis that the corporations producing bottled water helped create.”
Complaint against PepsiCo’s marketing of Aquafina
In the complaint, PPC alleges that PepsiCo promotes Aquafina as “pure water, perfect taste” and states on the Aquafina website that the packaging does not contain bisphenol-A (BPA) despite test results revealing the presence of BPA. PepsiCo’s website also tells consumers that the company is “working toward a more sustainable future.”
An independent laboratory evaluation revealed BPA in Aquafina “pure” bottled water products. BPA and other bisphenols, which are added to plastics to increase their rigidity, are known to disrupt the human endocrine systems.
PPC’s complaint alleges that PepsiCo perpetuates misleading industry narratives around plastic recycling, pledging “by 2025: design 100% of packaging to be recyclable, compostable, biodegradable, or reusable.” Other messaging on PepsiCo’s products’ packaging contains the claim “100% recyclable.”
The complaint alleges, plastic is not designed to be recycled, and most plastic items, including plastic bottles that are collected for recycling, are never recycled.
Danone Waters of America’s rejected appeal
The Danone lawsuit, brought by PPC in July 2024, alleges that Danone Waters of America violates DC’s CPPA for representing Evian bottled water as “natural” and “sustainable” despite the presence of microplastics and BPA. The lawsuit also argues that evian’s use of plastic packaging contributes significantly to plastic pollution and is inherently unsustainable.
On March 18, the DC Superior Court rejected Danone Waters of America’s arguments for dismissal on multiple grounds. The court found that PPC sufficiently pled its claim that Danone’s representations regarding evian’s “natural spring water” label and statements regarding the company’s sustainability commitments could be misleading to consumers.
Scott Hochberg, general counsel of Earth Island Institute, says: “The Court’s decision reaffirms that companies will be held responsible for misleading assertions about their products. We will continue to hold corporations accountable for blatant greenwashing and deceptive marketing.”
Complaint against makers of Fiji Water
In January, PPC filed a similar complaint against The Wonderful Company and Fiji Water, also for alleged “false and deceptive marketing” in violation of the CPPA. The companies promote Fiji Water as “natural artesian water,” “protected from external elements,” and “untouched,” despite test results revealing that these products contain microplastics and BPA.
PPC says it is not seeking monetary damages. Instead, it seeks an order declaring that the representations of Fiji Water bottled water products are unlawful under the CPPA and an injunction to end the deceptive advertising and marketing in question.
