The company behind the Stanley tumbler, a viral sensation among consumers and social media influencers alike, has come under fire as a result of accusations that it “purposefully used lead as a low-cost sealant” without informing consumers. That is what Mackenzie Brown, Meiling Robinson, Shea Ritchie, and Nora McCarl alleged in the proposed class action lawsuit that they filed against Stanley’s owner Pacific Market International (“PMI”) in Los Angeles Superior Court early this year. That case is still underway – albeit it has been expanded to include two similar complaints that other Stanley cup-buyers waged against PMI over the lead in its cups and the company’s marketing messaging.
The recently-consolidated legal battle, which is playing out before the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, centers on allegations that PMI engaged in “unfair business practices, fraud, false advertising, and unjust enrichment” by failing to disclose the presence of lead in Stanley cups, and instead, promoting them as safe, BPA-free, and eco-friendly.
A Bit of Background: The case got its start in January 2024 after social media posts, which alleged that Stanley cups contain 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, 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.
A Consolidated Complaint
According to the plaintiffs, the lead is used in the vacuum seal at the base of the cups and is concealed by a thin layer of stainless steel. They argue that the Stanley cup design could cause accidental lead exposure, particularly if the seal is damaged – a potential outcome that would be especially dangerous for young children that come in contact with the cup. In their filing, the plaintiffs emphasize that PMI’s marketing portrays the product as safe, “BPA-free,” and made of “recycled stainless steel,” a description that they claim is misleading when it comes to the product’s safety.
Seeking an order from the court to require PMI to engage in corrective advertising and to refrain from selling lead-containing products, as well as compensatory and punitive damages, the plaintiffs claim that “PMI decided for itself that the risk of lead exposure was not worth mentioning,” noting that such transparency could have harmed PMI’s bottom line.
PMI’s Motion to Dismiss
In response to the consolidated lawsuit, PMI filed a motion to dismiss this summer, asserting that the plaintiffs’ claims lack a foundation of harm or risk to consumers as “the lead is sealed in such a way that it does not come into contact with the beverage.” Looking to get the complaint tossed out, PMI argued that the plaintiffs rely on hypothetical harm since the lead remains encased in the stainless steel seal unless the product undergoes severe damage. According to PMI, the plaintiffs “offer no evidence” that the lead poses a direct threat under normal conditions and insists that lead in the seal is an “industry standard” for insulated beverage containers.
PMI further challenged the plaintiffs’ claims by asserting that its marketing did not explicitly promise lead-free construction, and therefore, does not violate warranty laws. Beyond that, the company maintains that there is no privity – or direct contractual relationship – between it and the plaintiffs, given that most cups were purchased through third-party retailers. With the foregoing in mind, PMI urges the court to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety.
Consumer Deception Claims
The latest back-and-forth comes by way of an opposition that the plaintiffs filed on August 29, in which they argue that PMI’s failure to disclose the presence of lead constitutes a material omission in light of its substantial marketing that emphasized the Stanley cups’ eco-friendly and health-conscious design features. The plaintiffs claim that “PMI chose to not disclose and actively concealed” the lead content, thereby, depriving consumers of the full information necessary to make an informed purchase.
In their opposition to PMI’s motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs point to the financial harm suffered by consumers who purchased the cups at a premium price, arguing that “if the truth [about the lead content] had been disclosed, reasonable consumers would not have purchased the product.” The plaintiffs allege that the price premium that PMI charged for what consumers believed to be a safe product constitutes a tangible injury, which they argue is sufficient to support claims under state consumer protection laws.
At the same time, the plaintiffs address PMI’s “industry standard” defense by highlighting that similar brands, including Hydro Flask, Owala and Klean Kanteen, manufacture comparable products without using lead.
Still yet, with regard to the lack of privity argument that PMI raised, the plaintiffs state that “Washington law does not require a plaintiff to show reliance on a manufacturer’s statements.” The plaintiffs argue that they are “intended beneficiaries” of PMI’s implied warranties regarding product safety, given that these products were sold directly to consumers with an implicit promise of safety for personal use. They assert that PMI’s marketing efforts reinforced consumer expectations of safety and that the absence of a clear warning about lead’s presence constituted an actionable violation of implied warranty laws under Washington and California law.
The plaintiffs request that the court deny PMI’s motion to dismiss in its entirety, allowing the case to proceed to a fuller examination of the company’s advertising practices, product design choices, and potential responsibility for consumer compensation.
THE BIGGER PICTURE: The Stanley tumbler case is significant for both consumers and companies that lean on social media-driven marketing strategies. The lawsuit – which was driven, in large part, by the attention that PMI garnered due to rapid sales growth and viral popularity on platforms like TikTok – brings into focus the impact of product transparency on consumer trust. (For some perspective, PMI’s revenues soared from $75 million to $750 million last year thanks to its viral beverage tumblers.)
As more consumers become aware of potential safety issues, the case brings attention to the responsibility companies have in providing full disclosure on product contents. PMI’s statement that “exposure to the lead is unlikely” has yet to settle consumer concerns, and the company has publicly stated that it is exploring “innovative, alternative materials” to replace lead in its sealing process in response to the controversy.
The case is In Re: Pacific Market International, LLC, Stanley Tumbler Litigation, 2:24-cv-00191, (W.D. Wa.)
Share
