NUK Lawsuit Claims ‘Sustainable’ Silicone Pacifiers Are Not as Environmentally Friendly as Advertised

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit alleges NUK for Nature 100% Sustainable Silicone Pacifiers are falsely advertised given the products have a negative impact on natural resources and the environment.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

The 84-page greenwashing lawsuit against Nuk USA, Graco Children’s Products and Newell Brands accuses the companies of grossly overstating the sustainability of the silicone pacifiers, and in the process misleading consumers into believing that every aspect of the products’ manufacturing process is completely sustainable.

Per the case, representations on the products’ packaging claim the pacifiers are “100%” sustainable, silicone and durable. In truth, while the NUK pacifiers may be made from 100 percent silicone, neither the silicone nor the product as a whole is “100% sustainable,” or 100 percent durable (i.e., made to last), given the product itself and the materials used to make it “cause damage to the environment and cannot be used for a long period of time,” the case alleges.

“‘100%’ sustainability is a deceptive overstatement of environmental benefits where the Pacifier undergoes manufacturing, distribution (which overlaps with Defendants’ other products that are not labeled as ‘sustainable’), use, and disposal processes that are not all sustainable,” the NUK lawsuit summarizes, charging that the defendants are “obligated to deliver” on their “sustainable” marketing claims.

The case alleges Nuk, Graco and Newell have omitted from the pacifier’s packaging critical facts concerning the risks linked to the manufacture and disposal of silicone products. According to the suit, the manufacturing process for silicone is intensive and includes “environmentally destructive” mining for silica sand, the main ingredient in silicone.

“Silicone is not recyclable, reusable, or biodegradable,” the complaint notes. “Silicone will also persist in the environment for hundreds of years once it reaches the end of its usable life.”

Further, the lawsuit relays that the defendants use the same manufacturing plant and distribution chain for their purportedly sustainable products as they do for their non-sustainable items. This includes planes and trucks that rely on fossil fuels for transportation, the suit says. The defendants also use companies such as Amazon, Target and Walmart, among other vendors, to sell and distribute the pacifiers, the case adds.

“These companies do not purport to be 100% sustainable or have a 100% sustainable distribution chain of their own accord,” the suit reads.

The case goes on to claim that the silicone used to make the pacifiers is also not “100% sustainable” as it is produced using processes that mix fossil-based and renewable raw materials.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has warned companies against using “overbroad, vague, and unbounded” sustainability claims such as those at issue, the case shares. In fact, the FTC’s Green Guides make clear that it is highly unlikely that marketers can substantiate all reasonable interpretations of “sustainable” and “environmentally friendly” advertising claims, and thus “should not make unqualified general environmental benefit claims” for products, the complaint relays.

On the back of the packaging for the NUK pacifiers, the defendants recommend that consumers throw the product away after using it for two months, the lawsuit goes on to note. As the suit tells it, the NUK sustainable silicone pacifier is “a disposable product destined for a landfill,” no different than the defendants’ other pacifiers whose packaging does not bear environmental and sustainability claims.

The NUK pacifier lawsuit looks to cover all United States citizens who bought any NUK pacifier branded as “For Nature 100% Sustainable Silicone” within the applicable statute of limitations period.

Are you owed unclaimed settlement money? Check out our class action rebates page full of open class action settlements.