Nuk Class Action: Are Your "BPA-Free" Baby Bottles Toxic?

A class action lawsuit has been filed against Newell Brands, the maker of Nuk baby bottles, alleging deceptive marketing practices. The lawsuit claims the company falsely advertised its bottles as "BPA Free" while they contain harmful microplastics, especially when heated.

Consumers Affected: Parents and caregivers who purchased Nuk baby bottles.

Reason for Lawsuit: Allegations of false advertising, misleading consumers into believing the products are safe and free of harmful chemicals, while potentially exposing infants to health risks associated with microplastics.

Court: The class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division.

The maker of Nuk baby bottles, Newell Brands, is the latest company to be hit with a lawsuit accusing it of selling baby products laden with toxic microplastics and lying to consumers about its products safety.

In a new proposed class action lawsuit, a mother accuses Newell Brands of marketing the Nuk baby bottles as being “BPA Free” when they in fact “contain considerable amounts of harmful microplastics” and she accuses the company of going to “considerable lengths to mislead consumers into believing the products are safe, good for them, and BPA Free.”

Far from being “BPA Free,” she says the bottles are full of microplastics, especially when heated. 

"BPA Free" or Full of Microplastics? Lawsuit Accuses Nuk of Misleading Parents

California local Tinamarie Barrales filed the proposed class action lawsuit accusing Newell Brands of violating state and federal law in its alleged false marketing of the bottles. She said she purchased various Nuk baby bottles because she relied on the company’s labeling and disclosures that they were safe to use and free from defects, including being free from BPAs. She said had she known the truth about the bottles containing microplastics she would have never purchased them.

Barrales accuses Newell Brands of not alerting consumers to the truth in order to increase profits and market share in the growing baby products market, where she says safety is a significant consumer purchasing decision. “Indeed, consumers value products free of BPA that promote safety.”

She argues that because the company dupes consumers into believing the bottles are top quality, they dupe consumers into paying an unnecessary premium and is therefore liable for damages.

Are Harmful Microplastics Lurking in Your Baby's Bottle?

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical used to make polycarbonate plastics, which are clear and shatter-resistant. BPA is also used in the lining of food cans and drinks, and as a coating for metal food cans, bottle tops, and water supply pipes. BPA is used in many products because it's strong, lightweight, and long-lasting. 

While the chemicals have been used for years in consumer products, it has been increasingly restricted by lawmakers and rejected by consumers after research linked it to a range of health issues including:

• Decreased fertility in adults
• Negative behavioral effects in female rats
• Decreased fetal weight and increased fetal death in pregnant rats
• Delayed puberty in female offspring of pregnant rats
• Obesity, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes 

As the lawsuit states, consumers have become increasingly concerned about the effects of synthetic, artificial, and chemical ingredients in food, dietary supplements, cleaning products, bath and beauty products, and everyday household products. 

“Due to their small size, microplastics can bioaccumulate, which results in compounding adverse health effects, such as growth and reproduction issues, DNA damage due to oxidative stress, inflammation, physical stress, weakened immunity, histological damage, or even death,” the lawsuit states.

The dangers of microplastic exposure are particularly severe for infants, as early exposure with microplastics can pave the way for chronic health conditions that can manifest over a lifetime, the lawsuit states.

Barrales accuses Newell Brands of capitalizing on consumers’ fears about BPA and desire for “natural products” by falsely marketing the Nuk bottles as “BPA Free” in order to get a greater share in the growing natural baby market, but in doing so says the company harms parents and their children.

Nuk Joins Growing List of Baby Products Facing Microplastics Lawsuits

Nuk is just the latest baby product to come under fire for allegedly containing microplastics. Recently, the makers of Philips Avent and Dr. Brown baby bottles were also hit with legal action over their baby bottles also containing microplastics, which is especially dangerous when the bottles are heated up. The manufacturers of Tommee Tippee bottles are facing a similar lawsuit also filed this month. 

Meanwhile, makers of other children’s products also face legal action for allegedly falsely advertising them as being safe, when they may contain high levels of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly known as “PFAS.” RiseWell Kids Mineral Toothpaste was recently met with a new lawsuit accusing it of allowing high levels of PFAS in the children’s toothpaste, posing serious health risks to youngsters.

Costco and Nice-Pak Products were also just hit with a lawsuit alleging their Kirkland Signature Baby Wipes, marketed as being made from naturally derived products, contain unsafe levels of PFAS after parents had scientists conduct tests on the wipes in a government approved lab. 

In another case, a California mom filed a class action lawsuit against Coterie Baby, a popular eco-friendly diaper company, alleging deceptive marketing, accusing Coterie Baby of falsely advertising its diapers as "PFAS-free" despite containing these potentially harmful chemicals. 

In the Nuk baby bottles class action lawsuit, Barrales is suing for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and for unjust enrichment. She is seeking monetary damages on behalf of a nationwide class. 

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Barrales v. Newell Brands Inc.
• Case Number: 1:24-cv-03025-MLB 
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division

Plaintiffs' Attorneys:

• George V. Granade and Michael R. Reese (Reese LLP)
• Kevin Laukaitis (Laukaitis Law LLC)