You Are What You Say You Are: Ruling Emphasizes Product Representations Mean What They “Actually Say”

Summary

In a February 20, 2025, order, the District Court for the Northern District of California partially granted a motion to dismiss product liability claims based on theories that the descriptions of baby and infant bottles and cups as “BPA Free” were an affirmative misrepresentation. Miller v. Philips N. Am. LLC, Civil No. 3:24-CV-03781-RFL (N.D. Cal. 20 Feb. 2025). While the court found the defendant did not make an affirmative misrepresentation in stating the product was “BPA Free,” the court allowed certain of the claims to proceed under a material misrepresentation theory—holding that two studies cited in the plaintiffs’ complaint potentially supported a plausible connection between the amount of microplastics leached from the product and possible harm to infants.

The Ruling

Plaintiffs, three purchasers of baby and infant bottles, asserted claims against the defendant manufacturer under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), in addition to claims for unjust enrichment and breach of warranty. Order at 1. In support of these claims, plaintiffs relied on two different theories of products liability. Id. at 2. First, plaintiffs alleged the defendant’s labeling of the products as “BPA free” was an affirmative misrepresentation that misled consumers into believing the products were free from plastic byproducts. Id. at 2–3. As their second theory, plaintiffs alleged the defendant’s failure to disclose the alleged leaching of microplastics constituted a material omission because it was an unreasonable safety hazard that is material and central to the products’ function. Id. at 3–4.

Addressing the affirmative misrepresentation theory first, the court explained that California’s “reasonable consumer” test governed plaintiffs’ claims. Under this test, a party must allege that “members of the public would likely be deceived” by the false statement. Id. at 3 (citation omitted). The court further noted that under the reasonable consumer test, product representations must be analyzed according to what they “actually say,” as opposed to their implied meaning. Id. (citation omitted). Here, while plaintiffs acknowledged the label statement that the product was “BPA Free” was “technically correct,” they argued the reasonable consumer would interpret the “BPA Free” claim to mean the product is guaranteed to not contain harmful plastic byproducts. Id. at 2. The court disagreed, finding that a statement that the products are free of BPAs cannot be extrapolated to imply the products are free of all harmful plastic byproducts, and plaintiffs had not identified a false representation as the basis for their claims. Id. at 3.

The court next turned to plaintiffs’ claims based on a material omission theory—that the defendant manufacturer had failed to disclose that the bottles purportedly leached microplastics. Plaintiffs alleged that this omission was both (a) related to an unreasonable safety hazard and (b) material and central to the function of the product. Id. at 3–4. The court found the first theory to be viable, while the second was not.

The court noted that in alleging an unreasonable safety hazard that gives rise to a duty to disclose, plaintiffs must state sufficient facts to support a “plausible connection” between the amount of microplastics leached and an unreasonable safety hazard (i.e., harm to infants after normal product usage). Id. at 4. Relying on two studies cited in the complaint, the court found that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a plausible connection between the amount of microplastics leached by the defendant’s products and harm to infants. See id. at 4–5. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that plaintiffs had failed to test microplastic levels in the specific products at issue in the case, as “[a]t this stage, Plaintiffs are not required to allege the specific level at which microplastics pose a danger to the sensitive population.” Id. at 5. Instead, the court noted it was sufficient to allege simply “a plausible connection” between the alleged harm and exposure. Id. In support of its ruling, the court found that plaintiffs’ cited studies of microplastic releases for similar polypropylene-based products provided “sufficient circumstantial evidence to infer that similar rates of release occur” with the relevant products at issue. Id. at 5. The court also emphasized that the studies relied upon by plaintiffs showed that even low amounts of exposure to infants—a “particularly sensitive population”—could cause harm to their health. Id. at 4–5.

On the other hand, the court declined to find that any omission was “material and central” to the functioning of the relevant product. Id. at 6–7. Under California’s “central function” test, a plaintiff must show that a product’s defect “renders the product incapable of use by any consumer.” Id. at 6 (cleaned up) (citation omitted). Here, the court held there was no dispute that the products could still be used for their central function: delivering formula to infants. Id. Importantly, the court recognized that whether the defendant’s products are made with safe materials is a distinct issue from their central functionality. The alleged existence of unsafe materials, the court explained, is more appropriately analyzed under whether the products present an unreasonable safety hazard, rather than as a defect affecting their central use. Id. at 7. As such, the court ruled that “this theory does not give rise to a duty to disclose, nor can it provide an alternative basis for liability.” Id.

Key Takeaways

The Philips ruling affirms that under California law, alleged product representations are assessed based on their explicit wording, not consumer inferences. However, manufacturers may still face failure-to-disclose claims if plaintiffs plausibly allege an unreasonable safety hazard, even without product-specific testing. The decision also provides that an alleged defect must render a product incapable of use to meet California’s “central function” test, reinforcing the narrow scope of potential liability under that theory.