i play Class Action Says Green Sprouts Cooling Teethers Aren’t ‘BPA Free’

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Green Sprouts Cooling Teethers are deceptively advertised as being “BPA free” when laboratory testing proves otherwise, a class action lawsuit states.

Plaintiff Dusty Spearman of California accuses the maker of Green Sprout teethers of misleading parents with marketing claims that are likely to deceive.

Spearman says defendant i play. Inc. markets its cooling teethers with claims such as “soothes gums and promotes oral development” for infants who are in the process of developing teeth.

The Green Sprouts class action alleges Spearman bought an i play. teether for her son last year based on claims that the product was “BPA free.” However, the plaintiff says laboratory testing for BPA found that the Green Sprouts teether had 702 nanograms of BPA. The lawsuit claims that the presence of BPA (or Bisphenol A) in a product that is designed to be placed in the mouth of an infant is a serious health risk.

The plaintiff points to California law that prohibits companies from selling “any bottle or cup that contains bisphenol A, at a detectable level above 0.1 parts per billion (ppb), if the bottle or cup is designed or intended to be filled with any liquid, food, or beverage intended primarily for consumption from that bottle or cup by children three years of age or younger.”

She says that although teethers are not specifically named in the state law, BPA in a product intended to be “sucked and chewed on by infants for hours each day during teething” is more dangerous than even the presence of BPA in bottles and cups. And with the teether registering 702 nanogram of BPA, the Green Sprouts class action says that means it contains 702 times as much BPA as allowable under this health statute.

Spearman claims that as a reasonable consumer she understood the term “BPA free” to mean that the teether didn’t contain any BPA. The i play. class action says if she had known the truth about this product, she never would have purchased it.

By filing this class action lawsuit, Spearman seeks to represent a Class of all consumers nationwide who bought a Green Sprouts Cooling Teether for household use. She also wants to represent a subclass of consumers who purchased the teethers in the state of California.

Spearman says i play. Inc. is in violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, California’s False Advertising Law, fraud, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and breach of express warranty.

She is seeking compensatory, statutory and punitive damages in amounts that a court or jury would find acceptable. Spearman also wants injunctive relief that would prevent i play. from continuing the allegedly illegal behavior complained of in this lawsuit.

The plaintiff is represented by L. Timothy Fisher, Joel D. Smith and Scott A. Bursor of Bursor & Fisher PA, and Michael T. Fraser of The Fraser Law Firm PC.

The Green Sprouts “BPA Free” Cooling Teether Class Action Lawsuit is Dusty Spearman v. i play. Inc., Case No. 2:17-cv-01563-TLN-KJN, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.