Felsenthal v. Medela LLC: Court confirms that consumers understand plastic-based products have a risk of microplastics

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed all claims in Felsenthal v. Medela LLC, a putative class action alleging a manufacturer engaged in false advertising about the potential presence of microplastics because “it is … implausible for any reasonable consumer to believe that plastic products are free of all microplastics.”

This decision follows an earlier decision from November 5, 2024, in which the district court granted Evian®’s motion to dismiss a challenge to its natural spring water label due to the purported presence of microplastics (Daly v. Danone Waters of America, LLC).

This case adds to a growing body of authority holding that generalized allegations of microplastic exposure cannot support false advertising claims.

Background

In Felsenthal v. Medela LLC, the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted medical device company Medela’s motion to dismiss a putative consumer class action asserting claims due to the purported presence of microplastics in the baby bottles upon heating.

Plaintiff Stephannie Felsenthal purchased Medela baby feeding bottles in 2022, allegedly relying on the “Made Without BPA” and “Dishwasher and Microwave Safe” statements on the product packaging. She asserted a claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act as well as consumer protection claims under the laws of nine additional states, along with an unjust enrichment claim, on behalf of a proposed nationwide class. The complaint alleged that reasonable consumers would understand the statements to mean the bottles could be heated without exposing infants to microplastics, and it asserted both affirmative misrepresentation claims based on the “Made Without BPA” and “Dishwasher and Microwave Safe” statements and an omission-based claim.

The court’s ruling and analysis

The district court dismissed all the claims, holding that Felsenthal failed to plausibly allege deceptive conduct, whether through a misstatement, an omission, or actual economic harm.

No material misrepresentation

As to the plaintiff’s affirmative misrepresentation theory, the court held that the plaintiff’s interpretation of the labels was “both unreasonable and implausible.” First, the court rejected the argument that reasonable consumers would read the “Made Without BPA” and “Dishwasher and Microwave Safe” representations as assurances about the absence of microplastic content. Instead, according to Judge Thomas M. Durkin, a reasonable consumer would understand the labels to indicate what the bottles do not contain and that “they will withstand melting in or causing damage to a dishwasher or microwave.” Moreover, the court rejected any contention that the statements misled consumers to believe the bottles were “safe,” because the plaintiff “provide[d] no allegations to plausibly suggest that microplastics are harmful at any level of consumption.”

Specifically, Judge Durkin examined the scientific studies cited in the complaint and concluded that “none definitively link exposure to microplastics to adverse health consequences, nor do they establish a threshold level of unsafe microplastics exposure.” Studies suggesting that microplastics may exacerbate medical conditions or may cause long-term effects did not satisfy the plausibility standard. In so holding, the court credited the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announcements that “current scientific evidence does not demonstrate that microplastics or nanoplastics detected in foods pose a risk to human health.”

This conclusion was reinforced by the plaintiff’s failure to plausibly allege that microplastics are harmful and that polypropylene is known to release microplastics when heated.

No omission

The court also rejected the plaintiff’s omission theory. A duty to disclose arises only where an omission renders an affirmative statement misleading by creating a false impression in the absence of additional information. Judge Durkin held that the challenged labels “communicate nothing about microplastics,” and they therefore could not mislead consumers through silence or omission. The absence of additional information on the subject of microplastics was not deceptive as a matter of law and did not trigger any disclosure obligation.

The court further reasoned that consumer protection laws do not require disclosures about characteristics that are obviously inherent in the product itself. Because the bottles were made of plastic, “no reasonable consumer would expect a disclosure about the presence of microplastic particles.”

That claim also failed because the plaintiff had not “plausibly alleg[ed] intent” and the court could not “reasonably infer” that Medela knew that “polypropylene releases microplastics at harmful levels, or even that microplastics are harmful at all.”

No actual damages

The court also held that the plaintiff failed to allege actual damages because the plaintiff “paid what she bargained for: a solid plastic baby bottle that releases microplastics over time and when exposed to heat.”

Although the complaint alleged that the plaintiff would have paid less or declined to purchase the bottles had she known about microplastic release, it did not allege facts supporting the existence of cheaper, comparable plastic products without microplastics or that the presence of microplastics diminished the value of the bottles she purchased. The court noted that making such allegations “would no doubt be difficult … considering microplastics are nearly impossible to avoid.”

Practical implications for consumer product companies

The Felsenthal decision reflects a growing judicial skepticism toward false advertising claims that are premised on unreasonable interpretations of unrelated marketing claims and speculative, unsubstantiated theories of harm.

For more information about this decision or its implications for consumer products, please contact the authors.