Lawsuit: Scotts Turf Builder EZ Seed Requires More Water Than Advertised

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

According to a proposed class action, mulch-grass seed product Scotts Turf Builder EZ Seed fails to live up to claims that it can grow “50% thicker with half the water” compared to “ordinary seed.” Filed against the product’s makers, The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, Inc. and The Scotts Company LLC, the lawsuit argues that the defendants’ grass seed actually requires more water than ordinary seed and cannot, as the companies claim, “grow anywhere.”

The complaint cites a study performed by turfgrass developer NexGen in which the company tested the defendants’ EZ Seed claims. The study reportedly found that EZ Seed produced no seedlings when provided with half the recommended amount of water for grass seeds, while ordinary seed and other brands supposedly did produce seedlings under the same conditions. According to the complaint, the study concluded that “’porous’ mulch seed products that ‘have a high moisture absorbing capacity’ like EZ Seed actually impair grass growth because the mulch ‘compete[s] with the seeds for available water.’” The defendants’ product, therefore, actually requires more water than ordinary seed, the case says, contrary to its labels’ representations.

The suit takes further issue with the defendants’ “No Quibble Guarantee,” i.e., Scotts' promise to send customers a full refund for their purchase, upon receipt of “original evidence of purchase,” if a buyer is unsatisfied with the product “for any reason.” The case claims the defendants “refused to honor their own return policy,” rendering the packages’ statements “illusory.”

The lawsuit argues that the defendants’ claims were materially false and deceived consumers into paying a premium price over ordinary grass seed for a product that failed to perform as advertised. From the complaint:

“Defendants’ materially false and misleading Representations were made in willful and wanton disregard of the interests of the consuming public, and constitute a knowing attempt to deceive consumers.”