Scotts Misled Shoppers With “Organic” Miracle-Gro Label, PFAS Class Action Alleges

Case Overview: The lawsuit says Scotts sold “organic” Miracle-Gro products that contained PFAS chemicals.

Consumers Affected: Buyers of Miracle-Gro organic soil and fertilizer products.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Scotts falsely markets its Miracle-Gro organic soil and fertilizer lines as natural and chemical-free, even though they allegedly contain PFAS,synthetic “forever chemicals” tied to long-term environmental persistence, a new lawsuit claims. 

The lawsuit claims Scotts leaned on the word “organic” to signal purity and safety, especially for home gardeners growing fruits and vegetables, while concealing the presence of substances no consumer would expect in products advertised as natural.

At the center of the case is the allegation that Scotts used its organic branding to command higher prices and gain market advantage, despite selling products that the plaintiffs say fall outside any reasonable definition of organic.

Plaintiffs Say “Organic” Branding Hid PFAS Contamination

The lawsuit is led by California consumers Carrie Calcagno and Praveen Pathangi, who say they bought several Miracle-Gro organic soil products at major retailers after relying on prominent on-package representations that the mixes were organic. 

Both plaintiffs claim they would not have purchased, or would have paid less for, the products had they known PFAS were present.

Calcagno purchased two Miracle-Gro organic soil products at a Target in La Mesa in March 2025, while Pathangi bought another mix at a Home Depot in San Diego earlier that year. Each reviewed the labels before buying and say the company’s advertising directly shaped their decisions.

Both describe a continuing interest in buying organic gardening materials but say Scotts’s marketing has made them unable to trust future product claims. The filing argues they will face ongoing uncertainty about whether Scotts’s products contain PFAS unless the company changes its practices.

PFAS Chemicals Contradict Organic Standards, Plaintiffs Argue

The complaint outlines why PFAS, synthetic chemicals widely used since the 1940s, cannot be considered organic under scientific, legal, or industry standards. These substances do not occur naturally, persist in soil and water, accumulate in the body, and are associated with harmful health effects even at very low levels.

Although the USDA’s organic standards do not formally regulate soils or fertilizers, third-party groups that verify organic inputs often rely on USDA definitions. The plaintiffs argue Scotts improperly used organic branding and OMRI listings while knowing PFAS are not allowed under any organic criteria.

Laboratory testing commissioned by the plaintiffs found multiple PFAS across every product tested, with several levels exceeding EPA screening thresholds that typically trigger further review.

Other Brands Face Legal Action Over Toxic Contaminants

Scotts is not alone in facing scrutiny over contamination and misleading marketing. DuPont recently agreed to a multimillion-dollar settlement tied to PFAS exposure in a community located near one of its former facilities.

Meanwhile, WaterWipes is being challenged over claims about purity and plastic-free ingredients and Rubbermaid’s TakeAlongs containers and S.C. Johnson’s Ziploc products are targets of lawsuits alleging microplastic release when used as directed. 

Toymaker ZURU faces claims that its Bunch O Balloons contain PFAS despite being marketed as eco-friendly, while brands like Gore-Tex and Apple have also been pulled into legal challenges over safety and sustainability representations.

Calcagno and Pathangi aim to represent all consumers in California who purchased any of the labeled organic Miracle-Gro soil or fertilizer products during the relevant period.

They want the court to order Scotts to stop advertising these products as organic, launch corrective disclosures, and compensate customers who paid premium prices for what they believed were chemical-free gardening materials.

Their request also includes restitution, damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and a court order directing Scotts to change its marketing practices going forward.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Calcagno, et al. v. The Scotts Company, LLC, et al.
• Case Number:  3:25-cv-02661-GPC-DEB
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California 

Plaintiffs' Attorney:

• Todd D. Carpenter and Jennifer M. French (Lynch Carpenter, LLP)

Do you trust “organic” garden labels after these claims? Share your thoughts below.