In a recent legal victory for Danone, a federal judge dismissed a class-action lawsuit challenging the "natural” labeling of Evian spring water. The plaintiffs claimed that Evian’s labeling was deceptive because microplastics, believed to leach from the plastic packaging, may be in the water. However, U.S. District Judge Thomas Durkin ruled that under current U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations, Danone’s labeling practices for Evian comply with federal standards.
Central to Judge Durkin’s decision was the FDA’s regulatory definition of “spring water,” which specifies that water can be labeled “spring water” if it originates from a natural spring. The FDA uses “natural” to describe the source of the water rather than its purity or lack of contaminants like microplastics. Judge Durkin pointed out that FDA regulations preempt state consumer fraud laws that might otherwise require additional disclosures about microplastic content.
Durkin’s ruling noted that federal law prohibits states from imposing additional bottled water labeling requirements. Since FDA standards do not mention microplastics in defining “spring water,” plaintiffs could not enforce a stricter interpretation under state consumer protection laws. The judge remarked, “The regulation defines ‘spring water’ as, partly, water harvested from a ‘natural spring.’ As long as water comes from a ‘natural spring,’ it can be labeled ‘spring water,’ and by extension ‘natural.’” Therefore, as long as the water’s source meets the FDA’s definition of a “natural spring,” the labeling remains valid.
Plaintiffs Michael Daly and Michael Dotson argued that microplastics in Evian water contradict the consumer perception of “natural” as pure, thus misleading buyers. They sought over $5 million in damages, claiming that Danone’s labeling led consumers to pay premium prices under false pretenses. However, the court found this argument unconvincing under federal regulations, which do not require labeling of microplastic content. The judge determined that “natural” and “spring water” are legally tied to the water’s origin rather than its content.
The court’s ruling also drew on previous cases addressing similar claims of “natural” labeling in bottled water. Judge Durkin cited decisions from other courts that found no legal requirement to disclose microplastic content under federal standards for “spring water” or “purified water.” Durkin clarified that challenges to the content of spring water containing microplastics are inseparable from the FDA’s definition of “spring water” itself, which is focused solely on the source.
Although the dismissal provides Danone with a legal win, Judge Durkin’s ruling allows plaintiffs until December 6, 2024, to amend their complaint and address the issue of regulatory preemption. The dismissal will become permanent if plaintiffs fail to submit a revised claim by this deadline.
The case underscores the growing divide between regulatory definitions and consumer expectations around terms like “natural.” As consumers increasingly seek transparency, particularly regarding the purity of premium products, the disconnect between FDA standards and modern environmental health concerns may inspire further legal scrutiny and potential policy shifts.
While Danone remains compliant with FDA labeling standards, consumer demand for clarity around product purity may lead to future challenges and industry calls for updated labeling regulations.
