Environment Click Above
 

ENFORCEMENT

The FTC’s Environmental Cases

  1. The Vons Companies, Inc., 113 F.T.C. 779 (1990) (challenging claims for "pesticide free" produce sold in grocery stores)
  2. Zipatone, Inc., 114 F.T.C. 376 (1991) (challenging "ecologically-safe" claims for aerosol spray cement products containing ozone depleting chemicals (1,1,1-Trichloroethane))
  3. Jerome Russell Cosmetics, USA, Inc., 114 F.T.C. 514 (1991) (challenging "ozone safe," "ozone friendly," and "contains no fluorocarbons" claims for aerosol hair spray products containing ozone depleting chemicals (1,1,1-Trichloroethane))
  4. First Brands, Corp., 115 F.T.C. 1 (1992) (challenging "degradable," "safe for the environment" and "environmentally friendly" claims for Glad plastic trash bags; consent order also discusses "compostable" claims)
  5. American Enviro Products, Inc., 115 F.T.C. 399 (1992) (challenging "biodegradable" and landfill benefit claims for Bunnies disposable diapers; consent order also discusses "compostable" claims)
  6. Tech Spray, Inc., 115 F.T.C. 433 (1992) (challenging "CFC free," "ozone friendly formula" and "ozone friendly claims for aerosol cleaning products containing ozone depleting chemicals (1,1,1-Trichloroethane, HCFCs))
  7. RMED International, Inc., 115 F.T.C. 572 (1992) (challenging "biodegradable" and landfill benefit claims for Tendercare disposable diapers; consent order also discusses "compostable" claims)
  8. Mobil Oil Corp., 116 F.T.C. 113 (1993) (challenging degradability and landfill benefit claims for Hefty Degradable plastic trash bags; consent order also discusses "compostable" claims)
  9. PerfectData Corp., 116 F.T.C. 769 (1993) (challenging "ozone friendly," "with ozone guard," and "contains no ozone depleting CFCs" claims for PerfectDuster II aerosol cleaning product containing ozone depleting chemicals (HCFC-22))
  10. DeMert & Dougherty, Inc., 116 F.T.C. 841 (1993) (challenging "environmentally safe" claims for "All Set" hairspray which contained chemicals (VOCs) that can contribute to smog formation)
  11. Nationwide Industries, 116 F.T.C. 853 (1993) (challenging "no CFCs, environment friendly" claims for "Snap Fix-a-Flat" aerosol tire inflator products containing ozone depleting chemicals (1,1,1-Trichloroethane, HCFC-22))
  12. Texwipe Company, 116 F.T.C. 1169 (1993) (challenging "ozone safe" and "environmentally safe" claims for "MicroDuster," "PC Duster" and "Office Duster II" aerosol cleaning products containing ozone depleting chemicals (HCFC-22))
  13. G.C. Thorsen, Inc., 116 F.T.C. 1179 (1993) (challenging "ozone friendly," "environmentally responsible," and "does not contain CFCs or other ozone damaging components" claims for "AirDuster" and "Airjet II" aerosol cleaning products containing ozone depleting chemicals (HCFC-22))
  14. White Castle System, Inc., 117 F.T.C. 1 (1994) (challenging "recyclable" claims for restaurant's fast-food paper packaging that becomes food-contaminated)
  15. Redmond Products, Inc., 117 F.T.C. 71 (1994) (challenging "Environmental formula. Contains natural propellants and no fluorocarbons" claims for "New Zealand Hair Paradise Hair Spray" and "Aussie Mega Styling Spray" products which contained chemicals (VOCs) that can contribute to smog formation)
  16. Mr. Coffee, Inc., 117 F.T.C. 156 (1994) (challenging "chlorine-free," no harmful byproducts paper filter manufacturing process and "recycled paper" claims for Mr. Coffee filters; and "recyclable" claim for the product's paperboard packaging)
  17. Archer Daniels Midland Company, 117 F.T.C. 403 (1994) (challenging "biodegradable" and "environmentally friendly" and landfill benefit claims for plastic products containing its corn starch additive; consent order also discusses "compostable" claims)
  18. Orkin Exterminating Company, Inc., 117 F.T.C. 747 (1994) (challenging claims that company's lawn pesticides are "practically non-toxic" and do not pose any significant risk to human health or the environment)
  19. America's Favorite Chicken Company, 118 F.T.C. 1 (1994) (challenging "recyclable" claims for restaurant's fast-food paper packaging that becomes food-contaminated)
  20. Oak Hill Industries Corp., 118 F.T.C. 44 (1994) (challenging "recyclable" claims for plastic tableware and plastic film packaging)
  21. LePage's, Inc., 118 F.T.C. 31 (1994) (challenging "biodegradable" claims for cellulose adhesive tape and "recyclable" claims for the product's plastic dispenser and paperboard packaging)
  22. AJM Packaging Corp., 118 F.T.C. 56 (1994) (challenging "biodegradable" and "recyclable" claims for Nature's Own Green Label paper plates)
  23. Keyes Fibre Company, 118 F.T.C. 150 (1994) (challenging "biodegradable," "compostable" in municipal solid waste composting facilities, and "recyclable" claims for Chinet® paper plates)
  24. Amoco Foam Products Company, 118 F.T.C. 194 (1994) (challenging "recyclable" claims for polystyrene foam plates, cups and other food service products)
  25. North American Plastics Corp., 118 F.T.C. 632 (1994) (challenging "biodegradable" and landfill benefit claims for EnviroGard plastic trash bags)
  26. BPI Environmental, Inc., 118 F.T.C. 930 (1994) (challenging "biodegradable, "degradable" and landfill benefit claims for "BIO-SAC" and "PHOTO-SAC" plastic grocery store bags)
  27. Chemopharm Laboratory Inc. d/b/a CP Industries, 118 F.T.C. 1195 (1994) (challenging environmentally safe claims for de-icer product containing sodium chloride or rock salt)
  28. Creative Aerosol Corp.,119 F.T.C. 13 (1995) (challenging "environmentally safe, contains no fluorocarbons" claims for aerosol foam soap product containing chemicals (VOCs) that can contribute to smog formation; "no fluorocarbons" claims for product containing ozone depleting chemicals (HCFC-22); and "recyclable" claims for the product's aluminum aerosol can and high-density polyethylene plastic cap)
  29. Mattel, Inc., 119 F.T.C. 969 (1995) (challenging "Contains no Chlorofluorocarbons (CFC's)" claims for aerosol foam soap product containing ozone depleting chemicals (HCFC-142b, HCFC-22))
  30. Safe Brands Corp., ARCO Chemical Company, 121 F.T.C. 379 (1996) (challenging claims that "Sierra" antifreeze (containing propylene glycol) was safe if ingested, environmentally safe after ordinary use, safer for the environment generally than conventional antifreeze (containing ethylene glycol), and was recyclable; that it provided superior engine protection; and that the product's high-density polyethylene plastic container was also recyclable)
  31. Amoco Oil Company, 121 F.T.C. 561 (1996) (challenging claims, among others, that "Crystal Clear Amoco Ultimate" gasoline is superior to all other brands of premium gasoline in providing engine performance and environmental benefits, and that its clear color demonstrates such benefits in comparison to other non-clear, premium gasolines)
  32. Benckiser Consumer Products, Inc., 121 F.T.C. 644 (1996) (challenging claim that a portion of the proceeds from the sale of EarthRite brand household cleaning products would be donated to non-profit environmental groups)
  33. RBR Productions, Inc., C-3696 (December 10, 1996) (challenging claims, among others, that an Isabel Cristina beauty salon disinfectant (containing o-phenylphenol, para-tertiary amylphenol and phosphoric acid) is "non-toxic," "non-corrosive," "biodegradable" and "environmentally safe;" "environmental formula" claims for an aerosol fingernail-glue drying spray product containing chemicals (VOCs) that can contribute to smog formation; and "recyclable" claims for the product's aluminum aerosol can)
  34. Blue Coral, Inc., Blue Coral-Slick 50, Inc. and Blue Coral-Slick 50, Ltd., D-9280 (July 23, 1997) (challenging claims that the companies’ engine treatment product, among other things, reduces toxic emissions)
  35. TradeNet Marketing, Inc., X990063 (U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, April 21, 1999) (challenging claims that liquid-filled plastic balls would clean laundry without polluting the earth's waterways by emitting a negative charge or by means of "structured water" or "IE crystals")
  36. OneSource Worldwide Network, Inc., X990067 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, July 1, 1999) (challenging claims that liquid-filled discs are an effective substitute for laundry detergents that not only clean laundry but does so without polluting the earth's waterways)
  37. Dura Lube Corporation, et al., D-9292 (May 3, 2000) (challenging claims that the companies’ motor oil additive, among other things, reduces emissions)
  38. Tender Corp., C-4261 (July 13, 2009) (challenging biodegradable claims for moist wipes)
  39. Kmart Corp., C-4263 (July 15, 2009) (challenging biodegradable claims for disposable plates)
  40. The M Group, Inc., et al., D-9340 (Aug. 11, 2009) (challenging claims that company’s textile fiber products, including clothing for infants, are made of bamboo fiber, retain the natural antimicrobial properties of the bamboo plant, and are biodegradable)
  41. Dyna-E International, Inc., et al., D-9336 (Dec. 15, 2009) (challenging biodegradable claims for compressed dry towels)
  42. CSE, Inc., et al., C-4276 (Dec. 15, 2009) (challenging claims that company’s textile fiber products are made of bamboo fiber, are manufactured using an environmentally-friendly process, and retain the natural antimicrobial properties of the bamboo plant)
  43. Pure Bamboo, LLC, et al., C-4274 (Dec. 15, 2009) (challenging claims that company’s textile fiber products, including clothing, are made of bamboo fiber, are manufactured using an environmentally-friendly process, retain the natural antimicrobial properties of the bamboo plant, and are biodegradable)
  44. Sami Designs, LLC, et al., C-4275 (Dec. 15, 2009) (challenging claims that company’s textile fiber products, including clothing, are made of bamboo fiber, are manufactured using an environmentally-friendly process, and retain the natural antimicrobial properties of the bamboo plant)
Additional Information
Main
FTC Guides
Consumer Education
Business Education
Enforcement
Web Links
Back to Homepage