Nuk class action alleges pacifier falsely advertised as 100% sustainable

Nuk class action lawsuit overview:

• Who: Plaintiffs Moussa Kouyate, Genesis Johnson, Angel Benitez and Elizabeth Zmrhal filed a class action lawsuit against NUK USA LLC, Graco Children’s Products Inc. and Newell Brands Inc.
• Why: The defendants allegedly falsely advertise their Nuk pacifier product as being “100% Sustainable.”
• Where: The Nuk pacifier class action lawsuit was filed in Georgia federal court.

A recent Nuk class action lawsuit alleges the company’s “NUK for Nature 100% Sustainable Silicone Pacifier” is misrepresented because its manufacture, distribution and disposal processes are not sustainable.

Plaintiffs Moussa Kouyate, Genesis Johnson, Angel Benitez and Elizabeth Zmrhal filed the Nuk class action lawsuit, claiming they each purchased at least one Nuk pacifier because they believed the product was sustainable and environmentally friendly.

They claim they would not have purchased a Nuk pacifier, or would not have paid as much for it, had they known the product was not actually 100% sustainable.

Nuk pacifier packaging misleads consumers, plaintiffs claim

Consumers are increasingly aware of the impact their choices have on the environment and seek to purchase environmentally friendly products, the Nuk class action lawsuit says.

The plaintiffs allege Nuk pacifier packaging misleads consumers by including “sustainable,” “silicone” and “durable” language near “100%” without clarifying which word or words “100%” describes. Therefore, consumers do not know whether the product is 100% sustainable, 100% silicone, 100% durable, or a combination of these factors.

“Even so, defendants’ marketing is inherently misleading and false because the pacifier is not 100% any of these things (sustainable, sustainable silicone or durable,” the Nuk class action lawsuit says.

The defendants “dramatically overstated the environmental benefits” of the Nuk pacifier in a manner likely to mislead consumers, the plaintiffs claim.

The term “sustainable” refers to products or materials made in a way that does not damage the environment and can be used for a long term, the Nuk class action lawsuit argues. 

“Here, however, the pacifier and the materials used to make the pacifier cause damage to the environment and cannot be used for a long period of time,” the Nuk class action lawsuit says.

The silicone manufacturing process reportedly involves environmentally destructive mining for silica sand, and silicone is not biodegradable, recyclable or reusable. 

Furthermore, the Nuk pacifier product cannot be considered sustainable because the defendants recommend disposing of the product after just two months, the plaintiffs allege.

The Nuk class action lawsuit asserts claims for breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and violations of various California, Georgia, Illinois and New York laws.

Another recent Nuk class action lawsuit alleges the company’s baby bottles leach microplastics when heated.

What do you think about the Nuk pacifier false advertising allegations? Tell us your thoughts in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by MaryBeth V. Gibson of Gibson Consumer Law Group LLC, Brian C. Gudmundson, Rachel K. Tack and Benjamin R. Cooper of Zimmerman Reed LLP and Christopher D. Jennings and Tyler B. Ewigleben of Jennings PLLC.

The Nuk pacifier class action lawsuit is Moussa Kouyate, et al. v. Nuk USA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-04020-AT, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Hatch Baby class action alleges power adapter can detach, posing shock hazard
• Fisher-Price announces recall for dumbbell toy due to choking hazard
• Walmart class action alleges retailer overcharges for food, baby products
• Jury awards $63M in cancer patient’s J&J talc trial