Krud Kutter Class Action Alleges Non-Toxic Label is False

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rust-Oleum Corporation by a consumer who claims the company falsely advertises its Krud Kutter home cleaner as “Non-Toxic.”

Plaintiff Anthony Bush says Krud Kutter home cleaner products are toxic because they contain ingredients that have been linked to lung irritation, skin irritation, sneezing, sore throat, runny nose, and shortness of breath.

Bush states the Krud Kutter products also contain numerous household cleaner ingredients that are harmful to humans, animals and the environment.

The plaintiff alleges that Rust-Oleum sought to take advantage of consumers’ desire to purchase non-toxic cleaning products that are safe for people, pets and the environment, while using less desirable, harmful ingredients in their products.

Bush is seeking injunctive relief in an attempt to stop the defendant’s unlawful labeling and advertising of the products.

The plaintiff claims that he purchased Krud Kutter Original Cleaner & Degreaser (Aerosol) and Krud Kutter Tough Task Remover at a Home Depot for $6 and $7 respectively.

He states that in purchasing the products, he relied on the claims made by advertisements and on the label. He says if he had known that the Krud Kutter home cleaner products contained household cleaner ingredients that were harmful, he would not have purchased the product.

Bush says that if the products were actually non-toxic as advertised and labeled, he would purchase the products in the future. To be sure, the plaintiff maintains that he is not sophisticated in the formulations of household cleaning ingredients and thus he is at risk of assuming the defendant had fixed the formulation so that he might buy them again.

“In response to consumers’ desire for safe and non-toxic cleaning products, many companies ‘greenwash’ their products by deceptively claiming that their cleaning products are safe,” the Rust-Oleum class action lawsuit says.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) thus created the “Green Guides,” which assist companies in avoiding making misleading and deceptive claims, the plaintiff says.

Bush claims that the “Green Guides” specifically address the use of the term “Non-Toxic” in the marketing of products. The FTC states that it is deceptive to misrepresent that a product, package or service is non-toxic.

Bush alleges that because of concerns regarding safe and non-toxic cleaning products, consumers have deliberately sought out these types of products for use in their homes and the sales of these types of products have skyrocketed.

The plaintiff also states that based on the “Non-Toxic” and “Earth Friendly” representations on the Krud Kutter home cleaning products, a reasonable customer would believe the products contain household cleaner ingredients that are safe for humans, animals and the environment.

However, despite these claims, the plaintiff alleges the products contain ingredients such as potassium hydroxide, monoethanolamine, butane, alcohol ethoxylates, diethanolamine, dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether, sodium metasilicate, and poly(oxy-1,2- ethanediyl),.alpha.-(2-propylheptyl)-.omega.-hydroxy that are harmful to humans, animals and the environment.

As an example, the plaintiff points out that potassium hydroxide is a dangerous chemical because it is corrosive to tissue and can cause severe burns of the skin, eyes and mucous membranes.

In addition, Bush says if this household cleaner ingredient is ingested, it can cause internal bleeding, scarring of tissue, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and lowered blood pressure that can result in a person’s collapse.

“By misleadingly and deceptively labeling the Products, as described herein, Defendant sought to take advantage of consumers’ desire for true non-toxic, safe cleaning products. Defendant has done so at the expense of unwitting consumers—many of whom seek to protect their household members and pets—and Defendant’s lawfully acting competitors, over whom Defendant has an unfair competitive advantage,” the Rust-Oleum class action lawsuit argues.

Bush states that at the time he purchased these products, he did not know, and had no reason to know, that the products’ labeling of the household cleaner ingredients were false, misleading, deceptive, and unlawful.

Bush says the defendant materially misled and failed to inform consumers that the product contained household cleaner ingredients that are harmful to people, animals and the planet.

“Defendant knew and knows that the Products are not ‘non-toxic’ or ‘earth friendly,’ though Defendant intentionally advertised and marketed the Products to deceive reasonable consumers into believing that Products were ‘non-toxic’ and ‘earth friendly’,” the Rust-Oleum class action lawsuit states.

There are two potential Classes in the Rust-Oleum class action lawsuit: 1) “All residents of the United States who, within the applicable statute of limitations periods, purchased the Products”; and 2) “All residents of California who, within four years prior to the filing of this Complaint, purchased the Products.”

Did you purchase any of the Krud Kutter Rust-Oleum products thinking they were non-toxic? Let us know in the comments section below.

The plaintiff is represented by Ryan J. Clarkson, Shireen M. Clarkson, Matthew T. Theriault, and Celine Cohan of Clarkson Law Firm and Christoper D. Moon and Kevin O. Moon of Moon Law APC.

The Rust-Oleum Krud Kutter Class Action Lawsuit is Anthony Bush v. Rust-Oleum Corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03268, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

United Airlines Class Action Claims Employees Were Denied Payroll Relief

Duke University Students Want Tuition Refunds

Is There a Lemon Law in South Carolina?

What is LTD vs Short Term Disability Insurance?