The case centers on Colgate's marketing of toothpaste tubes as 'recyclable' starting in 2019, when the company introduced new HDPE tubes for its Colgate and Tom's of Maine brands. Named plaintiffs Mikhail Gershzon, Kristin Della, and Jill Lienhard alleged they purchased the products believing the tubes could be recycled through curbside programs, when in reality most California recycling facilities do not accept toothpaste tubes due to contamination and sorting challenges.
Judge Corley found that the recyclability of the products could be determined on a classwide basis using objective criteria from the FTC's Green Guides, which require that recyclable products be 'collected, separated, or otherwise recovered from the waste stream through an established recycling program.' As the court noted, 'the question of whether a substantial majority of recycling programs in California accept these toothpaste tubes is an objective one' that 'can be answered class-wide.'
Internal Colgate documents revealed the company's awareness of limitations in the recyclability claims. The Association of Plastic Recyclers warned Colgate in its recognition letter that 'this Recognition applies to look-alike tubes' and cautioned the company 'to be sure in its packaging information that the public does not misunderstand that this Recognition applies to look-alike tubes or to believe collection is happening when it is not.'
The case originated when Colgate developed new HDPE tubes in 2019 that were technically compatible with existing recycling streams but faced widespread industry adoption challenges. According to court documents, Colgate knew that 'widespread conversion' to the HDPE tubes was 'essential to driving acceptance' by recycling facilities and sought to reach a 'critical mass' of 75% recyclable tubes industry-wide. However, both recyclable and non-recyclable versions remained on shelves simultaneously for years during the transition.
Colgate argued against class certification, contending that the recyclability claims varied significantly across products and time periods. The company's production audit showed that sampled products were manufactured without recyclability claims for approximately 40% of the proposed class period, and some products were manufactured concurrently in both recyclable and non-recyclable versions. Judge Corley rejected these arguments, finding that common issues predominated despite packaging variations.
The court also ruled that materiality could be proven on a classwide basis through expert surveys. Plaintiffs' expert Dr. J. Michael Dennis conducted consumer perception studies showing that 87.2% of consumers shown products with recyclability claims believed 'the toothpaste tube will be accepted for recycling by my local recycling program,' compared to only 17.2% of those shown products without the claims. Judge Corley denied Colgate's motions to exclude this expert testimony.
Judge Corley rejected Colgate's challenge to the proposed damages methodology, which would use conjoint analysis to determine price premiums paid due to the recyclability claims. The court found that damages expert Colin Weir's approach of multiplying units sold by price premiums attributable to the claims was economically sound and could be calculated on a classwide basis using sales data and survey results.
The ruling allows the case to proceed as a class action representing California consumers who purchased Colgate and Tom's of Maine toothpaste products with recyclability claims between late 2019 and the present. The decision adds to growing litigation challenging corporate environmental marketing claims as potentially misleading 'greenwashing.'