Microplastics Can Lead to Big Lawsuits
Microplastics are small plastic particles released from plastic products as they break down over time, and they are present everywhere in the environment.1 Although there is not yet conclusive scientific evidence demonstrating how microplastics affect human health, increased focus has been placed on potential health effects from microplastics.2 Lawyers for class action plaintiffs are paying attention too.
Plaintiffs have recently brought claims against large manufacturers alleging that their products contain harmful microplastics. These lawsuits typically allege that a product’s labeling and branding is misleading because it does not disclose that the products contain microplastics. For example, one lawsuit, Daly v. Danone Waters of America, LLC, alleged that the labeling of bottled spring water was misleading because the label referred to the water as “natural” even though it contained microplastics. The court explained that federal regulations define “spring water” as water that, for example, comes from a “natural spring.” Because the defendant’s labeling complied with this definition, the Court found the plaintiffs’ claims to be preempted and dismissed the action.3
Plaintiffs in putative class actions have also brought claims against manufacturers of baby bottles alleging that the bottles were deceptively labeled and failed to disclose that they leach microplastics when heated. In a recent decision, Miller v. Philips North America LLC, the Northern District of California dismissed claims that a “BPA Free” label conveyed to consumers that microplastics were not present in the product because “BPA Free” said nothing about microplastics. However, the court allowed plaintiffs to proceed with their claims that the defendant failed to disclose that microplastics are leached when the baby bottles are heated.4
Companies that become involved in litigation related to labeling and microplastics have a variety of potential defenses. For example, as in Daly, companies may be able to successfully argue that a plaintiff’s claims are preempted, particularly if the product at issue is defined by federal regulations. And as in Miller, companies may be able to successfully challenge claims on the basis that the labeling of a product is clear and does not communicate any message about microplastics. Ultimately, the defenses available will depend on the specific facts of the case.
It is likely that plaintiffs will consider new products to target with claims related to the presence of microplastics. Companies that manufacture plastic products—particularly where that product is used in connection with food and beverages—may benefit from reviewing their labels to consider whether any affirmative statements on the labels make representations about the presence of microplastics. These companies should also stay informed of any proposed government regulations (such as from the Food and Drug Administration) related to microplastics in order to minimize potential risks.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Plaintiffs in putative class actions have also brought claims against manufacturers of baby bottles alleging that the bottles were deceptively labeled and failed to disclose that they leach microplastics when heated. In a recent decision, Miller v. Philips North America LLC, the Northern District of California dismissed claims that a “BPA Free” label conveyed to consumers that microplastics were not present in the product because “BPA Free” said nothing about microplastics. However, the court allowed plaintiffs to proceed with their claims that the defendant failed to disclose that microplastics are leached when the baby bottles are heated.4
Companies that become involved in litigation related to labeling and microplastics have a variety of potential defenses. For example, as in Daly, companies may be able to successfully argue that a plaintiff’s claims are preempted, particularly if the product at issue is defined by federal regulations. And as in Miller, companies may be able to successfully challenge claims on the basis that the labeling of a product is clear and does not communicate any message about microplastics. Ultimately, the defenses available will depend on the specific facts of the case.
It is likely that plaintiffs will consider new products to target with claims related to the presence of microplastics. Companies that manufacture plastic products—particularly where that product is used in connection with food and beverages—may benefit from reviewing their labels to consider whether any affirmative statements on the labels make representations about the presence of microplastics. These companies should also stay informed of any proposed government regulations (such as from the Food and Drug Administration) related to microplastics in order to minimize potential risks.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
[1] https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/microplastics-and-nanoplastics-foods; https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/microplastics-everywhere.
[2] https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/microplastics-everywhere; https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/health/microplastic-risk-reduce-exposure-wellness/index.html.
[3] See Daly v. Danone Waters of America, LLC, No. 24 C 2424, 2024 WL 4679086 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2024).
[4] See generally Miller v. Philips North America LLC, No. 24-cv-03871 (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 46.
Footnotes
[1] https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/microplastics-and-nanoplastics-foods; https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/microplastics-everywhere.
[2] https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/microplastics-everywhere; https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/health/microplastic-risk-reduce-exposure-wellness/index.html.
[3] See Daly v. Danone Waters of America, LLC, No. 24 C 2424, 2024 WL 4679086 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2024).
[4] See generally Miller v. Philips North America LLC, No. 24-cv-03871 (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 46.
Related Attorneys
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
Microplastics are small plastic particles released from plastic products as they break down over time, and they are present everywhere in the environment.1 Although there is not yet conclusive scientific evidence demonstrating how microplastics affect human health, increased focus has been placed on potential health effects from microplastics.2 Lawyers for class action plaintiffs are paying attention too.
Plaintiffs have recently brought claims against large manufacturers alleging that their products contain harmful microplastics. These lawsuits typically allege that a product’s labeling and branding is misleading because it does not disclose that the products contain microplastics. For example, one lawsuit, Daly v. Danone Waters of America, LLC, alleged that the labeling of bottled spring water was misleading because the label referred to the water as “natural” even though it contained microplastics. The court explained that federal regulations define “spring water” as water that, for example, comes from a “natural spring.” Because the defendant’s labeling complied with this definition, the Court found the plaintiffs’ claims to be preempted and dismissed the action.3
Plaintiffs in putative class actions have also brought claims against manufacturers of baby bottles alleging that the bottles were deceptively labeled and failed to disclose that they leach microplastics when heated. In a recent decision, Miller v. Philips North America LLC, the Northern District of California dismissed claims that a “BPA Free” label conveyed to consumers that microplastics were not present in the product because “BPA Free” said nothing about microplastics. However, the court allowed plaintiffs to proceed with their claims that the defendant failed to disclose that microplastics are leached when the baby bottles are heated.4
Companies that become involved in litigation related to labeling and microplastics have a variety of potential defenses. For example, as in Daly, companies may be able to successfully argue that a plaintiff’s claims are preempted, particularly if the product at issue is defined by federal regulations. And as in Miller, companies may be able to successfully challenge claims on the basis that the labeling of a product is clear and does not communicate any message about microplastics. Ultimately, the defenses available will depend on the specific facts of the case.
It is likely that plaintiffs will consider new products to target with claims related to the presence of microplastics. Companies that manufacture plastic products—particularly where that product is used in connection with food and beverages—may benefit from reviewing their labels to consider whether any affirmative statements on the labels make representations about the presence of microplastics. These companies should also stay informed of any proposed government regulations (such as from the Food and Drug Administration) related to microplastics in order to minimize potential risks.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
Plaintiffs in putative class actions have also brought claims against manufacturers of baby bottles alleging that the bottles were deceptively labeled and failed to disclose that they leach microplastics when heated. In a recent decision, Miller v. Philips North America LLC, the Northern District of California dismissed claims that a “BPA Free” label conveyed to consumers that microplastics were not present in the product because “BPA Free” said nothing about microplastics. However, the court allowed plaintiffs to proceed with their claims that the defendant failed to disclose that microplastics are leached when the baby bottles are heated.4
Companies that become involved in litigation related to labeling and microplastics have a variety of potential defenses. For example, as in Daly, companies may be able to successfully argue that a plaintiff’s claims are preempted, particularly if the product at issue is defined by federal regulations. And as in Miller, companies may be able to successfully challenge claims on the basis that the labeling of a product is clear and does not communicate any message about microplastics. Ultimately, the defenses available will depend on the specific facts of the case.
It is likely that plaintiffs will consider new products to target with claims related to the presence of microplastics. Companies that manufacture plastic products—particularly where that product is used in connection with food and beverages—may benefit from reviewing their labels to consider whether any affirmative statements on the labels make representations about the presence of microplastics. These companies should also stay informed of any proposed government regulations (such as from the Food and Drug Administration) related to microplastics in order to minimize potential risks.
This article is available in the Jenner & Block Japan Newsletter. / この記事はJenner & Blockニュースレターに掲載されています。
[1] https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/microplastics-and-nanoplastics-foods; https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/microplastics-everywhere.
[2] https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/microplastics-everywhere; https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/health/microplastic-risk-reduce-exposure-wellness/index.html.
[3] See Daly v. Danone Waters of America, LLC, No. 24 C 2424, 2024 WL 4679086 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2024).
[4] See generally Miller v. Philips North America LLC, No. 24-cv-03871 (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 46.
Footnotes
[1] https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/microplastics-and-nanoplastics-foods; https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/microplastics-everywhere.
[2] https://magazine.hms.harvard.edu/articles/microplastics-everywhere; https://www.cnn.com/2024/12/09/health/microplastic-risk-reduce-exposure-wellness/index.html.
[3] See Daly v. Danone Waters of America, LLC, No. 24 C 2424, 2024 WL 4679086 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 5, 2024).
[4] See generally Miller v. Philips North America LLC, No. 24-cv-03871 (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 46.
Related Attorneys
Related Articles
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Event
Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026
Publications
In Employee Relations Law Journal: What Happens When ERISA Disability Deadlines Slip
Partner Joseph Torres along with Associates Emma O'Connor and Christopher LeWarne, authored an article for the Employee Relations Law Journal analyzing a significant Fourth Circuit decision with substantial consequences for ERISA disability plan administrators.
June 23, 2026
Event
Jenner & Block Partners to Speak at Council on Governmental Relations Conference
On June 11, Partners Mike Vernick, Katie Wynbrandt, and Betsy Henthorne will speak on a panel at the Council on Governmental Relations (COGR) meeting.
June 11, 2026