Windex Class Action Alleges Misleading ‘Non-Toxic’ Label

UPDATE: Sept. 8, 2020, S.C. Johnson filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit on the grounds that the allegations against it are so vague it’s not even clear which Windex glass cleaner the plaintiff was harmed by and how.

S.C. Johnson & Son Inc. has been hit with a class action lawsuit by a consumer who alleges the company’s Windex Vinegar Glass Cleaner is falsely advertised as being “non-toxic.”

Plaintiff Katherine Shimanovsky says the defendant’s Windex Vinegar Glass Cleaner contains ingredients that may be harmful to people, pets and the environment.

The Windex class action lawsuit claims the label representations on the bottles of Windex Vinegar Glass Cleaner include: “Streak Free Shine,” “Bottle Made Of 100% Ocean Plastic,” and “Non-Toxic Formula.”

Shimanovsky states that she purchased the Windex product because she wanted to avoid harm caused by harsh chemicals and understood “non-toxic” to be just that. 

The Windex class action lawsuit maintains that the packaging of Windex fails to disclose that there is a presence of potentially toxic and harmful compounds which are only available to consumers on the manufacturer’s website.

The plaintiff notes that the Windex cleaning product contains three cleaning agents which disqualify the product of making an unqualified non-toxic claim. Those ingredients are  2-hexoxyethanol, butoxypropanol and acetic acid (vinegar). 

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued guidelines for products which are marketed with messages such as “non-toxic” and “100% Ocean Plastic.” These Green Guides prohibit deceptive acts, which are likely to confuse consumers who are acting reasonably and are material to a consumer’s decisions, the Windex class action lawsuit says.

Shimanovsky argues that the Green Guides state that it is deceptive to misrepresent that a product is “non-toxic,” unless there is reliable scientific evidence to substantiate the claim.

The plaintiff notes that Windex’s “non-toxic” claim signifies to consumers that the product will not be harmful to people (including small children), common pets or the environment. 

The Windex class action lawsuit alleges that vinegar is a known irritant and its effects on humans, household pets and the environment means that it is a potentially toxic substance that contradicts the “non-toxic” claims made on the product. 

The plaintiff says when vinegar gets in the eyes, irritation and redness are common and serious corneal injury can occur.

The Windex class action also claims that the defendant neglects to mention that 2-hexoxyethanol is a toxic chemical compound with potentially profound negative effects on humans, household pets and the environment.

“A major solvent, 2-Hexoxyethanol may cause central nervous system depression and kidney failure and may be absorbed through the skin,” claims the Windex class action lawsuit.

In addition, butoxypropanol is a hazardous, harsh chemical compound with potentially harmful effects.

The plaintiff goes on to say that reliable consumers may not have the time to visit the defendant’s website when they are deciding on whether to purchase the product at the store.

Shimanovsky notes that even if customers did go to the defendant’s website, they would need to research these ingredients to figure out if they were harmful and then apply these definitions to the meaning of “non-toxic.”

“Defendant’s branding and packaging of the Product is designed to – and does – deceive, mislead, and defraud consumers,” the Windex class action lawsuit states.

The plaintiff also claims that Windex Vinegar Glass Cleaner is sold at higher prices per unit than it would have in the absence of such misconduct, which results in profits at the expense of the consumers.

The defendant’s packaging and branding of Windex Vinegar is designed to mislead, deceive and defraud the plaintiff and other putative Class Members, the Windex class action lawsuit maintains.

The plaintiff states that if she had known the truth about the product, she would not have purchased it or would have paid less for it.

Shimanovsky says that she would buy the product again if it did not contain components which were inconsistent with the use of the “non-toxic” claim. 

“The absence of components which can be toxic, as this term is understood by consumers, has a material bearing on price and consumer acceptance of such products, as consumers will pay more for products which are non-toxic,” the Windex Vinegar class action lawsuit states.

In addition, Shimanovsky notes that the defendant has a duty to disclose or provide non-deceptive marketing of the product and should have known that the advertisements were false and misleading. 

The plaintiff claims that the defendant has violated New York’s General Business Law (Consumer Product Statutes) as well as negligent misrepresentation, breach of express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability, and the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act

Did you purchase Windex Vinegar Glass Cleaner thinking that it was “non-toxic?” Let us know in the comments section below.

The plaintiff is represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates and Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP.

The Windex Vinegar Non-Toxic Glass Cleaner Class Action Lawsuit is Katherine Shimanovsky v. S.C. Johnson & Son Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-03588, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

EBay COVID-19 Price-Gouging Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

Apple Class Action Says Laptop Displays Are Faulty

Nurses’ PPE Shortage Advocate May Have Died Of COVID-19

How Much Do JUUL Pods Cost for School Kids?