Baby bottle maker says microplastics inescapable, health risks unproven, in bid to toss lawsuit
By Diana Novak Jones
Sept 9 (Reuters) -Handi-Craft Co on Friday pushed back against claims that the company failed to warn parents that their plastic baby bottles leach microplastics when heated, arguing in part that microplastics are ubiquitous and their health effects are unproven.
Handi-Craft and another baby bottle maker, Philips North America, are each facing proposed class actions claiming they failed to warn parents that the polypropylene bottles and cups sold under the brands Philips Avent and Handi-Craft’s Dr. Brown's, when heated as part of regular use, could expose infants to tiny flecks of plastic that can interfere with their digestive, reproductive and immune systems. Both companies have moved to dismiss the claims against them.
In its motion to dismiss, Handi-Craft argued that the consumers suing hadn’t dealt with “the intractable problem of assigning liability when microplastics are so ubiquitous and ‘inescapable’ that humans constantly ingest and inhale them from countless sources.”
The attorneys representing the consumers did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Neither did representatives of Philips North America or Handi-Craft Company.
The consumers, who are California residents, filed the parallel lawsuits against Philips and Handi-Craft in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in June. The plaintiffs, who hope to represent both classes covering California purchasers and nationwide purchasers of the products, are seeking damages and an injunction barring the sale of the products and marketing that implies they are safe.
In its motion to dismiss, filed on Sept. 3, Philips argued that the plaintiffs had failed to quantify how many microplastics the bottles supposedly leach or whether that amount could be dangerous.
Handi-Craft is also asking the judge overseeing its case to strike some of the claims for the nationwide class, arguing in part that state laws governing consumer products are too different for them to proceed as a nationwide class.
The cases are Miller et al v. Philips North America LLC, case number 3:24-cv-03781, and Cortez et al v. Handi-Craft Company Inc, case number 4:24-cv-03782, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
For the plaintiffs: Ryan Clarkson, Bahar Sodaify, Kelsey Elling and Alan Gudino of the Clarkson Law Firm.
For Philips: Cortlin Lannin, Megan Rodgers and Raymond Lu of Covington & Burling.
For Handi-Craft: IJay Palansky, Stephen Siegel, Yvette Mishev, Elizabeth Wolicki and Jack Butz of Armstrong Teasdale and Dana Finberg of O’Hagan Meyer.
Reporting by Diana Jones
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
