On May 7, 2025, the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a significant decision in Daly v. The Wonderful Company LLC, No. 24 C 1267 (N.D. Ill.). The court dismissed with prejudice a putative class action alleging that Fiji Water’s “Natural Artesian Water” labeling was deceptive due to purported microplastic contamination.

Among other things, the court found that the plaintiff’s allegations were insufficiently supported. Specifically, the allegations regarding product testing were conclusory, borrowed from purported third-party testing, or simply promised future testing. Thus, the court ruled that they failed to support a claim.

This ruling provides important considerations for companies facing similar claims, particularly in the context of microplastics and nanoplastics.

Background

Plaintiff John Daly alleged that Fiji’s “Natural Artesian Water” label was misleading because the product allegedly contained microplastics, and was therefore not “natural.” The initial complaint cited studies about microplastics in bottled water that did not involve Fiji and referenced a hypothetical mechanism by which microplastics could enter bottled water. The court dismissed the initial complaint for failure to state a claim because the third-party testing did not address Fiji products specifically. Daly then sought leave to amend, adding allegations that:

1. His counsel already tested Fiji Water, and found that it “contains microplastics,” but he could not disclose further detail because it was protected work product, and
2. He hired an expert who will test Fiji Water in the future.

Court’s ruling and analysis

Judge Matthew Kennelly denied leave to amend and dismissed the case with prejudice, emphasizing several critical points:

1. Conclusory allegations of contamination are insufficient: The court held that bare assertions that a product “contains microplastics” fail to meet the plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss, because they “provide[] no information about when the testing was done, how it was done, or what it showed, including whether the microplastics were present in a concentration that would be considered unsafe or that cause the product to be deemed ‘adulterated.’”

This holding may bring pleading standards into closer alignment with prevailing regulation (eg, Food and Drug Administration standards on adulteration), and underscores that plaintiffs must allege not just the presence of a contaminant, but also that the contaminant exceeded permissible amounts.

Similarly, the court noted that the testing allegation did not address “whether the microplastics were in the bottles of water before they were opened,” which would be necessary to assess whether the “Natural” label statement was deceptive.

2. No hiding behind privilege for key factual allegations: The court rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to shield the underlying information on the testing under the guise of privilege. The court likened this to a poker player refusing to show their cards while claiming to have won the pot, making clear that privilege cannot be used to avoid pleading specific contemporaneous facts supporting contamination. This ruling may be particularly pertinent to consumer product litigation, as plaintiffs’ attorneys routinely claim to have tested products while refusing to disclose the specifics of the testing early in litigation.

3. Future testing does not support a claim: The court found allegations that an expert will test the product in the future were irrelevant to the plausibility of the claim at the time of pleading. Such promises “say nothing about the facts as they exist now or as they existed at the time the amended complaint was filed.”

Implications for consumer product companies

This decision is a significant precedent for defending against unsupported contamination claims in consumer class actions. The Daly court expressed concern about the potential for abuse if plaintiffs could proceed to discovery based on unsupported allegations of contamination. Under the Daly court’s standard, plaintiffs are required to provide detailed, product-specific factual allegations at the pleading stage, and not rely on “privileged” test results or promises of future testing.

Companies facing similar claims are encouraged to consider this decision when formulating their pleading-stage defense strategies.

For more information, please contact the authors.