This browser is not actively supported anymore. For the best passle experience, we strongly recommend you upgrade your browser.
| 1 minute read

Competitor Accuses Rival of "Greenwashing" When Advertising Its Products

Last month, an earplug maker sued a rival in federal district court in California, alleging that the competitor had engaged “[i]n a calculated ‘greenwashing’ scheme to capture market share from competitors . . . by falsely advertising its [] products with numerous unqualified environmental benefit claims.”  Specifically, the complaint brought claims under the Lanham Act (false advertising) and California state law (unfair competition).  Notably, California law contains specific provisions that explicitly prohibit misleading environmental marketing claims (e.g., California Business and Professions Code § 17580.5), making it an especially potent jurisdiction in which to assert these types of claims. 

Although this case is only at the initial stage of the proceedings, it is nonetheless highly significant.  Until now, allegations of “greenwashing” had mainly featured in enforcement actions brought by government regulators or by class action plaintiffs focusing on consumer products.  In this case, greenwashing allegations have been weaponized as another legal tool in the arsenal when corporations sue one another in commercial litigation.  (This scenario is not wholly novel—there have been prior disputes before the National Advertising Division (BBB National Programs), for instance, where companies accused one another of greenwashing.)  This development suggests that allegations of greenwashing may soon become another useful litigation strategy in disputes between competing companies. 

Moldex-Metric Inc. is suing rival earplug maker Protective Industrial Products Inc. in California federal court, saying it  is enjoying an unfair advantage by claiming that its products are "eco-friendly" and made with 82% "bio-based" material despite knowing that these claims are false. In a complaint filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Moldex said its own testing — commissioned with the same lab that Protective claims to have used — showed that the BioSoft earplugs contain between 5% and 40% biologically based material, not 82%, a discrepancy that can't be explained by a margin of error. With such a small percentage of bio-based material, Moldex said the earplugs most likely cannot live up to the company's claims about how quickly they biodegrade, either, making its marketing deceptive and misleading greenwashing.

Tags

greenwashing