So-called “greenwashing” claims have been the subject of significant activity over the last several years.  In one recent example, the Northern District of Illinois permitted a consumer class action about “cage free” eggs to proceed against Eggland’s Best over the defendant’s argument that the eggs complied with state definitions of “cage free.”  

The case, Janecyk v. Eggland’s Best, No. 24-cv-06222 (N.D. Ill. 2024), involved plaintiffs who allegedly “care[d] about animal welfare, which is reflected in their purchasing decisions,” including their decision to purchase “cage free” eggs from Eggland.  Plaintiffs alleged that they were misled by Eggland’s claims on its packaging that its hens were “free to roam in a pleasant, natural environment,” when in fact the hens were allegedly housed indoors in large industrial facilities that, while technically “cage free,” lacked outdoor access.  As a result of these misrepresentations, plaintiffs alleged they were injured by paying a price premium for the eggs that was not justified.  

Eggland moved to dismiss, arguing, inter alia, that its statements were not misleading because the eggs were accurately labeled “cage free” under state regulations and because the challenged language amounted to non‑actionable puffery. The district court rejected both arguments.  In so doing, it acknowledged that the plaintiffs did not dispute that “the eggs in fact comport with the state definitions of cage free,” but concluded that was insignificant in light of the “additional statement that the hens were also ‘free to roam’ in a ‘natural’ and ‘pleasant environment.’”  The court held that a reasonable consumer could plausibly interpret “free to roam” in a “natural” and “pleasant environment” to suggest outdoor access or conditions materially different from those alleged by Plaintiffs.  The presence of the “cage free” label did not, in the court’s view, necessarily cure the potentially misleading impression created by the additional descriptive language (i.e., “free to roam”). 

The Court also held that “free to roam in a pleasant natural environment, taken as a whole, makes a verifiable promise to the consumer about the living conditions of the hens,” and as a result was not “mere puffery.”  While claims about a “pleasant” environment alone may be puffery, the Court held that the additional detail about “free to roam” and “natural environment” moved the statement out of the realm of puffery.

The decision underscores the litigation risk associated with aspirational or arguably subjective marketing claims that go beyond regulatory labels. Even where products comply with formal definitions like “cage free,” courts may allow claims to proceed if additional language plausibly conveys a more nuanced message to consumers.