The company behind Stanley cup tumblers has beaten a lawsuit waged against it for allegedly using lead in its popular tumblers and “deliberately conceal[ing]” such use and the potential harm at play. In an order on January 17, a judge for the U.S. District Court Western District of Washington sided with Pacific Market International, LLC (“PMI”), the company behind the popular Stanley brand, granting its motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims – from breach of express warranty and fraud by omission to violations of various states’ consumer protection statutes – albeit with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.
At a high level, the court found that the consumer plaintiffs have failed to allege “a specific and plausible risk of harm from the lead in Stanley cups,” and that “the mere presence of lead could not be material to a reasonable consumer.”
A Bit of Background: The case got its start in January 2024 after social media posts, which alleged that its hot-selling Stanley cup product contains lead, went viral. In the wake of Brown, Robinson, Ritchie, and McCarl filing suit in a state court in Los Angeles, a number of separate – but similar – suits emerged in various states. The consolidated complaint, which was filed in federal court in Washington in April 2024, continues in the vein of the original allegations, with the plaintiffs claiming that PMI’s Adventure Quencher cups and similar models contain lead in the seal at their base.
In the consolidated complaint, the plaintiffs allege that PMI knowingly concealed this information from consumers in order to avoid impacting sales. They argue that this omission by PMI violates consumer protection laws in multiple states, including California, Washington, New York, and Nevada.
PMI pushed for dismissal in a filing in July 2024, arguing that the plaintiffs’ case should be tossed out in its entirety on the basis that the complaint “alleges no facts showing that the [Stanley cup] product causes harm.”
An Across-the-Board Win for Stanley
In a sweeping win last week, Judge Tana Lin granted PMI’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Law, New York False Advertising Law, Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, Washington Product Liability Act, California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California Unfair Competition Law violations claims, as well as their claims of breach of express warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, and fraud by omission. It is worth noting that the court provided the plaintiffs with leave to amend all of their claims (excerpt for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability), thereby, giving them an opportunity to bolster their arguments and provide more specific allegations.
At the heart of the dismissal is the court’s order is its finding that the plaintiffs fell short in pleading their claims, including particularly the failure to show how the alleged presence of lead caused actual or potential harm to consumers under normal use. Among other things, the court highlighted the plaintiffs’ failure to adequately allege …
> That the tumblers were “not reasonably safe for their intended use” (as required for a claim under the Washington Product Liability Act);
> That they suffered anything but economic loss, which is excluded by the Washington Product Liability Act. (The plaintiffs “do not sufficiently allege physical harm from the lead in the Stanley cups.”);
> Sufficient facts to support a finding that the presence of lead in Stanley cups in particular is harmful to consumers such that nondisclosure was “substantially injurious” (under California’s Unfair Competition Law);
> A breach of an express warranty. Instead, the plaintiffs rely on “characterizations” of PMI’s marketing, including their claim that PMI “warranted to consumers that the Stanley cups were safe and durable.” According to the court, the plaintiffs do not allege that PMI ever made this specific representation;
> Specific omissions by PMI that created a misleading impression or a duty to disclose the presence of lead in the Stanley cup product.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: The consolidated case comes at a time when consumers increasingly demand transparency from brands about product safety and supply chain sourcing. Against this background, the case raises critical questions about what constitutes sufficient disclosure, especially for companies marketing products as “safe” and/or “sustainable.” The allegations against PMI could serve as a cautionary tale – from both legal and reputation perspectives – for companies that court consumers by way of ESG-centric marketing messaging.
At the same time, as regulators and watchdogs increasingly scrutinize product safety claims, companies will need to be extra vigilant when it comes to making sure their marketing aligns with reality in the event that they are making objective (and thus, actionable) claims. Failure to do so risks not only litigation but also erosion of consumer trust – a valuable yet fragile currency in today’s marketplace.
The case is In Re: Pacific Market International, LLC, Stanley Tumbler Litigation, 2:24-cv-00191, (W.D. Wa.)
Share
