in Newswire Published on November 7, 2022

H&M Hit with Another ‘Greenwashing’ Class Action Over Allegedly False ‘Conscious Choice’ Sustainability Claims [DISMISSED]

Last Updated on May 26, 2023

Lizama et al. v. H&M Hennes & Mauritz Lp

Filed: November 3, 2022 ◆§ 4:22-cv-01170

A class action claims that clothing in H&M’s “Conscious Choice” collection is misrepresented as sustainable given that the items are made from environmentally harmful materials.

Defendant(s)

H&M Hennes & Mauritz LP

Law(s)

California Business and Professions Code California Consumers Legal Remedies Act Missouri Merchandising Practices Act

State(s)

Missouri

May 26, 2023 – H&M ‘Greenwashing’ Class Action Thrown Out by Federal Judge

The proposed class action lawsuit detailed on this page was dismissed on May 12, 2023.

In a 23-page memo and order, United States District Judge Rodney W. Sippel granted H&M’s amended motion to dismiss the case, which the defendant filed in January. The judge’s order dismissed the suit in part due to one plaintiff’s failure to state claims against H&M, finding that “there is no basis for the reasonable consumer to be misled” because H&M does not, in fact, represent its “conscious choice” collection as “environmentally friendly,” as alleged.

“H&M states that its conscious choice garments contain ‘more sustainable materials’ and that the line includes ‘its most sustainable products.’ No reasonable consumer would understand this representation to mean that the conscious choice clothing line is inherently ‘sustainable’ or that H&M’s clothing is ‘environmentally friendly’ when neither of those representations were ever made. Instead, the only reasonable reading of H&M’s advertisements is that the conscious choice collection uses materials that are more sustainable than its regular materials.”

In addition, Judge Sippel threw out the second plaintiff’s claims for lack of jurisdiction given he made his purchase outside of Missouri, where the case was filed, and his claims therefore “have no connection to Missouri.”

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

A proposed class action claims that clothing in H&M’s “Conscious Choice” collection is deceptively marketed as sustainable given that the items are made from materials that are damaging to the environment.

The 55-page case says that contrary to H&M’s advertising, the women’s, men’s, kid’s and baby clothing in its Conscious Choice collection are neither sustainable nor environmentally friendly because they are made primarily of recycled polyester, a disposable plastic considered to be a “one-way street to landfill or incineration.”

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

According to the filing, consumers are reasonably led to believe that Conscious Choice products are an environmentally responsible purchase, especially since H&M defines its collection with the following statement on its website:

“The shortcut to more sustainable shopping? Conscious choice...pieces created with a little extra consideration for the planet. Each Conscious choice product contains at least 50% of more sustainable materials – like organic cotton or recycled polyester – but many more contain a lot more than that.”

Additionally, the case alleges the products are further misrepresented through H&M’s use of green hangtags on Conscious Choice clothing to identify them as “sustainable,” and advertising campaigns for the Conscious Choice collection that contain “[c]onscious-clad models surrounded by lots of grass and plush green plants.”

Per the complaint, clothing made from recycled polyester will likely end up in a landfill because its fibers are weakened as they are mechanically recycled from polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles. According to the case, this method of “downcycling” PET bottles is “problematic in several ways.” In particular, in a “circular economy,” the case explains, materials should be reused and recycled “like-for-like” to prevent waste, meaning, according to the suit, “clothes should be made into new clothes, and packaging into new packaging, rather than poaching from other waste streams.”

Essentially, turning plastic bottles into clothes “should be considered a one-way ticket to landfill, incineration or being dumped in nature,” the suit summarizes.

Further, the filing contends that the Conscious Choice Collection actually contains a higher percentage of synthetics, 72 percent, than H&M’s main collection, 61 percent. Also, the case argues that recycled polyester still sheds microplastics that end up in the ocean, the air and food chains.

As the case tells it, many companies “greenwash” their products by claiming their clothing is made from more sustainable materials to capitalize on consumers’ increasing concern for the environment and their willingness to pay more for environment-friendly products. As a result, the Conscious Choice Collection products are sold at a higher price than similarly manufactured products that are not represented as “conscious,” “sustainable,” and environmentally friendly, the suit says.

Ultimately, however, there is little that is sustainable about the idea that consumers can keep consuming plastic items simply because they can be recycled into more products, the lawsuit contends.

“Basing sustainability strategies on the idea that consumers can continue to consume disposable plastic goods (because they can be recycled into more products) is highly problematic. This method of ‘green’ marketing does not address the fundamental issue of perpetuating disposable solutions and over-consumption of natural resources. Indeed, these strategies encourage consumers to buy more clothes or throw away garments sooner, in the belief they can be recycled in some magic machine.”

The United States Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Green Guides, a set of principles designed to prevent companies from greenwashing their products, state that “an environmental marketing claim should not overstate, directly or by implication, an environmental attribute or benefit.

“Marketers should not state or imply environmental benefits if the benefits are negligible,” the case reads.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased H&M Conscious Choice Collection products for personal, family, or household use during the applicable statute of limitations period.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

Case Spotlight

Hair Relaxer Lawsuits

Women who developed ovarian or uterine cancer after using hair relaxers such as Dark & Lovely and Motions may now have an opportunity to take legal action.

Read more here: Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits