Keurig K-Cups Recyclable Class Action Lawsuit Gets Certified

A federal judge in California has certified a Class of Keurig K-Cup buyers who allege that Keurig Green Mountain falsely labels its pods as recyclable.

U.S. District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. found that the case met all requirements needed in order for a Class to be established. 

The certified Class includes anyone who purchased the products for personal, family or household use in California from June 8, 2016, through the present. 

In her 2018 class action lawsuit, lead plaintiff Kathleen Smith alleges that the “green” version of Keurig K-Cups aren’t recyclable because they’re so small, even though the product labeling says they can be recycled.

Smith says most municipal recycling facilities can’t recycle plastic the size of Keurig K-Cups, meaning they go to landfills.

In the class action lawsuit, Smith said had she known the K-Cups were not recyclable, she would not have purchased them and would have sought out different single-serve coffee pods or other coffee products that were compostable, recyclable or reusable.

Smith originally filed her Keurig K-Cups class action lawsuit in California Superior Court; the case was removed to federal court in November 2018.

Keurig initially argued the class action lawsuit should be dismissed, saying Smith hadn’t demonstrated reasonable customers would be misled by the company’s advertisements that the coffee pods could be recycled. They argued most consumers would realize Keurig K-Cups are not recyclable everywhere, despite the ads.

But Judge Gilliam determined last year the case could move forward.

Keurig’s motion to dismiss the case was denied after the Court determined Smith had “standing to and sufficiently alleged injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability,” Judge Gilliam wrote in granting Class certification. “The Court further rejected Keurig’s argument that there was no risk of future deception of Plaintiff.”

In arguing the case should not be certified as a class action lawsuit, Keurig Green Mountain claimed the plaintiff had failed to meet the requirements because the “claims or defenses of the representative parties” were not typical and that the plaintiff lacked standing “and the proposed relief is not indivisible.” The company also claimed the Class definition was too broad.

In his certification of the Class, Judge Gilliam first addressed Keurig’s assertion that the plaintiff had not read the recycling label on the Keurig K-Cups package she bought online.

“Contrary to Keurig’s characterization of Plaintiff’s deposition testimony, Plaintiff did not testify that she did not read the recyclability labels,” Judge Gilliam wrote. “She testified instead that she did not see the ‘Check Locally’ asterisk on the ‘Peel, Empty, Recycle’ label until after the suit was filed.”

The judge said what mattered was that Smith “was aware of Keurig’s representations that the Products were recyclable” and purchased the Keurig K-Cups several times, believing they were recyclable due to the packaging.

“The fact that Plaintiff did not notice the qualification to Keurig’s recyclability representation does not show that her claims are not typical.”

Similarly, Keurig argued Smith failed to meet the adequacy requirement because she “never read” the labels and “never checked” to see if the Keurig K-Cups were recyclable locally. 

“For the same reasons noted above, Keurig’s arguments fail,” Judge Gilliam wrote.

Keurig had argued Smith lacked standing because the company added “qualifying language that comports” with the Federal Trade Commission’s recommendations, and since she is now fully informed that the Keurig K-Cups aren’t always recyclable, she doesn’t risk future injury.

However, Judge Gilliam wrote, because it’s plausible the company could make Keurig K-Cups recyclable without changing their size, if recycling technology evolves, the plaintiff has standing in seeking injunctive relief.

The judge again sided with the plaintiff over Keurig’s argument that the injunctive relief is not indivisible.

“Again, Keurig fails to take Plaintiff’s theory of this case into account,” Judge Gilliam wrote. “It is not individual community recycling facilities’ ability to collect the Products that is at issue. Instead, Plaintiff alleges that the Products are not recyclable in a substantial majority of communities in which they are sold such that Keurig’s representation is misleading.”

Smith’s class action lawsuit alleges Keurig Green Mountain is in breach of express warranty and has violated the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law and has become unjustly enriched.

A case management conference in the Keurig class action lawsuit has been set for Oct. 13.

Have you purchased Keurig K-Cups believing they were recyclable? Tell us your experience in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Howard Hirsch and Ryan Berghoff of Lexington Law Group.

The Keurig K-Cups False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Kathleen Smith v. Keurig Green Mountain, Case No. 4:18-cv-06690-HSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

Class Action Lawsuit Claims Keurig Coffee Pods Are Mislabeled as Recyclable

American Lung Association Announces Plan to Address Youth Vaping in Schools

Nestlé Class Action Lawsuit Says Coffee Mate Creamer Is Mislabeled

Is There a Lemon Law for Used Cars in New Jersey?