Reynolds Consumer Products AG Settlement Ends Litigation Over Allegedly Non-Recyclable Hefty ‘Recycling’ Bags

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Reynolds Consumer Products has agreed to a $212,000 settlement to resolve allegations from the Arizona Attorney General that the company misleadingly marketed and advertised its Hefty recycling bags as recyclable when Arizona’s municipal recycling centers are unable to recycle them.

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

In a February 23, 2026 press release, Arizona Attorney General (AG) Kris Mayes announced that the Reynolds Consumer Products settlement will prohibit the manufacturer from selling “recycling” bags under the Hefty brand in Arizona, unless the bags are accepted at a substantial majority of municipal recycling facilities.

The consent judgment further stipulates that Reynolds must alter the packaging for its transparent clear and blue bags to state “These Bags Are Not Recyclable,” and remove any images on the packaging that depict recyclable materials, such as plastic bottles or aluminum cans. The packaging redesign will be implemented nationwide, the press release states.

Court documents state that Reynolds will pay $30,000 in restitution to consumers. To be eligible for benefits under the settlement, consumers must file a complaint online or download a PDF complaint form to print, fill out, and return to the Arizona AG’s office before October 1, 2026.

Related Reading: Glad ‘Recycling’ Bags Are Not Recyclable Anywhere in U.S., Class Action Says

The Reynolds Consumer Products lawsuit, filed by the Arizona AG on August 20, 2025, claimed that the household product manufacturer misleadingly marketed its “Recycling,” “Clear,” and “Blue” bags as recyclable and “appropriate to use when disposing of recyclable material,” in violation of the Arizona Consumer Fraud Act, as the bags are made of soft plastic that cannot be processed by any Arizona municipal recycling centers.

The filing highlighted the bags’ packaging, which bore “RECYCLING” in large, hard-to-miss letters, reinforced consumer belief that the products were recyclable because they were marked with the traditional “chasing arrows” symbol for recycling, and included claims such as “Developed for Use in Municipal Recycling Programs Where Applicable.”

The Reynolds lawsuit explained that when a company overemphasizes a product’s supposed environmental benefits, it is referred to as “greenwashing.” Greenwashing can include “intentionally” labelling a product with misleading claims to give the “deceptive impression” that the product allows environmentally conscious consumers.  

Not only were the bags not recyclable, the case alleged, but any recyclable products placed in them were also redirected to landfills. Additionally, the filing claimed that if the bags end up in an Arizona municipal recycling center, they could “damage the equipment, lead to unsafe conditions for workers, and are never recycled.”

Reynolds, the case contended, knew or should have known that its repeated claims that the bags were recyclable were false. The suit added that consumers are frequently “confused” about which items are recyclable, and Reynolds took advantage of their ignorance to peddle a product that is completely inappropriate for recycling purposes.

The lawsuit concluded that consumers should not be expected to decipher whether a product’s packaging is accurate, as they should be able to reasonably rely on a product’s packaging and marketing for accurate information.

The Reynolds lawsuit additionally noted that both the Connecticut and Minnesota Attorneys General had previously filed lawsuits against Reynolds over the same false claims that the bags were recyclable.

Did you know that some class action settlements require no proof to submit a claim? Check out the latest top class action settlements.