3 ms·
According to https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/260.12 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/260.12 , they would be in the clear as long as 60+% of users
by LanceH 7y ago
According to https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/260.12 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/16/260.12 , they would be in the clear as long as 60+% of users have access to recycling facilities/programs for these products.
This is surely the case since nearly every municipality has some program in place. The obvious problem is that these cities aren't actually recycling things while claiming they are -- possibly even requiring people to recycle. It looks to me like cities need to be sued to remove these plastics from the programs. Then 60% wouldn't have access to recycling programs, and then it would be deceptive to label it as recyclable.
Another avenue would be a change by legislation.
For all the outrage, this lawsuit is going nowhere.
And before I'm called a shill: Don't drink Coke. Don't drink Pepsi. Don't drink bottled water.
I'm just a fan of the law being knowable -- oh, and articles having substance.
- elliekelly 7y agoThey aren't alleging a violation of FTC marketing guidelines, they're alleging a violation of California marketing guidance, which sets a higher (though still, as far as I can tell, optional) standard. Regardless, a company can still be culpable and held liable for wrongdoing even if they've dutifully followed "industry standards". I agree the lawsuit is unlikely to go anywhere. But many people said the same about the lawsuits against big tobacco. And even if the lawsuit is tossed at the very first opportunity the organization has called attention to some of the worst actors when it comes to plastic production. I'd call that a win. Either way it's the way our system slowly but sure gets the wheels of progress spinning.