Igloo must face biodegradability/recycled content/made in USA consumer claims

Lieber v. Igloo Products Corp., --- F.Supp.3d ----, 2026 WL 266301, No. 25-CV-488 (ARR) (LKE) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2026)

I’ll get to the Igloo 9^th Circuit case eventually. This case is a putative consumer class action against Igloo, alleging that its claims that its coolers are “biodegradable,” made of “recycled content,” and “Made in the USA” are false and misleading under NY law.  

First: Plaintiffs alleged that “biodegradable” would lead reasonable consumers to believe that the product would completely degrade within a reasonable period of time after customary disposal, but instead it typically ends up in landfills after it is thrown out. The FTC’s Green Guides say:

It is deceptive to make an unqualified degradable claim for items entering the solid waste stream if the items do not completely decompose within one year after customary disposal. Unqualified degradable claims for items that are customarily disposed in landfills, incinerators, and recycling facilities are deceptive because these locations do not present conditions in which complete decomposition will occur within one year.

NY law provides a “complete defense” to liability under its false advertising provisions if the defendant’s “act or practice is ... subject to and complies with the rules and regulations of, and the statutes administered by, the federal trade commission or any other official department, division, commission or agency of the United States.” “A court may evaluate a challenged representation’s compliance with the FTC’s Green Guides to determine whether or not there is a complete defense to a claim under N.Y. G.B.L. §§ 349 and 350.”

Igloo argued that the claims should be dismissed because the Green Guides don’t create a private right of action, but of course plaintiffs were suing under NY law, not the Green Guides.

Igloo also argued that “the term ‘biodegradable’ does not mean ‘will biodegrade’ or ‘destined for inevitable biodegradation,’ ” and plaintiffs didn’t allege that the ReCool Product was inherently incapable of biodegrading or that consumers knew about the Green Guides.

The court found deception plausible. It was plausible that the products didn’t comply with the Green Guides; the complaint alleged that the products were customarily disposed of in landfills, and lacked the necessary qualifications for a biodegradability claim.

Second, Igloo made “recycled” claims about some products, but plaintiffs alleged that only some parts were made from recycled plastic, but not, e.g., foam insulation and interior linings, and cited the Green Guides again:

Marketers can make unqualified claims of recycled content if the entire product or package, excluding minor, incidental components, is made from recycled material. For items that are partially made of recycled material, the marketer should clearly and prominently qualify the claim to avoid deception about the amount or percentage, by weight, of recycled content.

This too was plausible at this stage. “While defendant cites numerous decisions where courts declined to read ‘exclusively’ into an advertising claim—such as whether the phrase ‘real cocoa’ on a product’s packaging implied that a product is made exclusively of real cocoa—it fails to consider that purchasing decisions are made within a specific context.”

Third, Igloo allegedly made Made in USA representations even though not all or virtually all aspects of the relevant products, including the raw materials, components, and manufacturing processes, originated from and occured within the United States. Plaintiffs alleged that specific materials were likely made outside the US, and full components such as hinges, handles, drain plugs, bottle openers, spigots, washers, and wheels were allegedly imported from manufacturers outside of the United States. The FTC defines “Made in the United States” and its synonyms to mean “any unqualified representation[ ], express or implied, that a product, and by extension, the raw materials used in its manufacture, are of U.S. origin.” Thus, federal regulations consider it a deceptive practice to label a product as “Made in the United States” or with substantially similar representations unless (1) the final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States, (2) all significant processing that goes in the product occurs in the United States, and (3) all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States.

Even though plaintiffs only alleged that certain materials were “likely” from outside the US, it was plausible that the claims were deceptive.

Breach of express warranty claims failed for want of sufficient pre-suit notice, and unjust enrichment claims were dismissed as duplicative.