complaint -- petlack v. sc johnson
Post on 07-Apr-2018
217 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/6/2019 Complaint -- Petlack v. SC Johnson
1/13
REESE RICHMAN LLP
Michael R. Reese875 Sixth Avenue, 18th FloorNew York, New York 10001Telephone: (212) 579-4625
Facsimile: (212) 253-4272Email: michael@reeserichman.com
-and-
WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC
Deborah Clark-Weintraub1540 Broadway, 37th FloorNew York, New York 10036Telephone: (212) 447-7070Facsimile: (212) 447-7077
Email: dweintraub@wdklaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
HOWARD PETLACK, on behalf of himself and allothers similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SC JOHNSON & SON, INC.,
Defendant.
Case No.: _________________
CLASS ACTION
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FORDECEPTIVE SALES PRACTICES;UNJUST ENRICHMENT
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 1 of 12 Document 1
-
8/6/2019 Complaint -- Petlack v. SC Johnson
2/13
Plaintiff Howard Petlack (Plaintiff), by and through his counsel, alleges the following
based upon his own personal knowledge and the investigation of his counsel. Plaintiff believes
that substantial evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set forth herein after a
reasonable opportunity for discovery.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a proposed class action against SC Johnson & Son, Inc. (SC Johnson orDefendant) for misleading consumers about the environmental safety of its leading household
cleaning product Windex.
2. Looking to profit off the growing environmental green movement, starting inJanuary, 2008 and continuing to the present (the Class Period), SC Johnson has prominently
placed a deceptive seal of approval label on the front of its Windex product as follows:
3. Additionally, on the reverse side of the label that is read through the back of theWindex packaging it states that Greenlist is a rating system that promotes the use of
environmentally responsible ingredients.
4. By making these representations on Windex packaging, SC Johnson conveys toPlaintiff and other consumers that Windex has been subjected to a neutral, third partys testing
regime that had determined that Windex is environmentally friendly.
5. Unfortunately for consumers, these representations by SC Johnson are false.Based upon counsels investigation, the truth is that the Greenlist seal of approval is not the
Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 2 of 12 Document 1
-
8/6/2019 Complaint -- Petlack v. SC Johnson
3/13
2
product of a neutral, third partybut instead the work of Defendant SC Johnson itself. Greenlist
is not a designation bestowed by a non-profit environmental group, or even a neutral third-party,
but instead is the creation of SC Johnson itself. In other words, the Greenlist seal of approval
is nothing more than SC Johnson touting its own product.
6. Additionally, the ingredients that constitute Windex are not environmentallysound, but rather pose a real risk. Despite the statement that Windex contains Greenlist
ingredients, Defendant has not changed the ingredients of Windex to remove environmentally
harmful chemicals. Namely, one of the key ingredients of Windex ethyl glycol n-hexyl ether
poses serious danger, including death, if ingested by wildlife and small children. Moreover,
because the taste of ethyl gycol n-hexyl ether is sweet, the risk of it being ingested by wildlife
(or, again, small children) is multiplied.
7. The type of deception engaged in by Defendant here is becoming so rampant thatthe term Greenwash has been coined to describe this type of conduct. See e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing (Greenwash is a term used to describe the
perception of consumers that they are being misled by a company regarding the environmental
practices of the company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.).
8. Plaintiff brings this suit to now end Defendants deceptive practice and to recoverthe ill-gotten gains obtained by Defendant through this deception.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
9. This Court has jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted herein pursuant to 28U.S.C. 1332(d), because the aggregate claims of the Class exceed the sum or value of
$5,000,000.00, and there is diversity of citizenship between plaintiff, who, as alleged below, is a
citizen of Florida, and Defendant, which, as alleged below, is a citizen of Wisconsin.
Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 3 of 12 Document 1
-
8/6/2019 Complaint -- Petlack v. SC Johnson
4/13
3
10. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(1) and (2).Substantial acts in furtherance of the alleged improper conduct, including the creation of the
deceptive Greenlist label and the dissemination of false information regarding Windex, in
particular, that Windex is an environmentally friendly product, occurred within this District.
Defendant is headquartered within this District, with its main offices in Racine, Wisconsin.
PARTIES
11. Plaintiff Howard Petlack (Plaintiff) is a resident of Boynton Beach, Florida.Plaintiff purchased Defendants Windex product during the Class Period based upon the
representations that Windex was environmentally friendly and has the Greenlist seal of approval.
Plaintiff relied upon these misrepresentations in making his decision to purchase Windex.
Plaintiff suffered injury in that he would not have bought the Greenlist-labeled Windex had he
known the truth that Greenlist was the creation of SC Johnson, and not a neutral party, and that
Windex was not environmentally friendly.
12. Defendant SC Johnson is a citizen of Racine County, Wisconsin. Defendant SCJohnson describes itself as one of the world's leading manufacturers of household cleaning
products and products for home storage, air care, personal care and insect control. In 2007,
Defendant had more than $7.5 billion in sales.
SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
13. In recent years, consumers have become significantly more aware and sensitive totheir impact on the environment through the products they purchase and use. As a result, a
movement has developed demanding consumer products that are environmentally sound, i.e. that
do not harm the environment through the products ingredients, manufacture, use or disposal.
The term Green is commonly used to describe these products, and the environmental
movement that led to them.
Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 4 of 12 Document 1
-
8/6/2019 Complaint -- Petlack v. SC Johnson
5/13
4
14. A number of new companies, such as SimpleGreen and Seventh Generation, havestarted to provide Green products to consumers in recent years. Because of the high demand for
these products, Green products often command a premium price while simultaneously taking
away market share from products that serve similar functions but are not Green.
15. These new Green companies and products pose a threat to older establishedcompanies like Defendant that produce the same type of, but non-Green, product.
16. Defendant SC Johnson is one of the oldest manufacturers of household cleaningproducts in the United States. In 2007, Defendant SC Johnson had over $7.5 billion in sales.
17.
Windex is one of Defendants leading household cleaning products. Windex is
advertised as a multi-purpose cleaner that specializes in cleaning glass and other reflective and
shiny surfaces.
18. In recent years, Windex has faced stiff competition from a number of Green productsthat claim to perform the same function as Windex, but do so in an environmentally friendly
fashion. These products include brands made by SimpleGreen and Seventh Generation.
19. Starting in 2005, faced with this competition, Windex began to lose market share tothese and other eco-friendly cleaners. Seehttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is
_/ai_n27230492. Then in early January 2008, the threat to SC Johnson and its Windex brand
multiplied when its major competitor Clorox, Co. of Oakland, California announced that it was
launching a line of Green Works cleaning products that had received a seal of approval from the
Sierra Club.
20. In response to these market threats, and to garner a corner of the Green market foritself, on January 16, 2008, Defendant SC Johnson began marketing and selling Windex in
packaging that prominently displayed the Greenlist label on the front to represent that the
product is environmentally sound:
Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 5 of 12 Document 1
-
8/6/2019 Complaint -- Petlack v. SC Johnson
6/13
5
21. The use of the word Greenlist is also meant to convey that the product hasreceived the approval of a non-profit environmental group or other neutral third party. In fact,
several environmental groups use the term Greenlist to describe environmentally sound
products, programs or people. See e.g. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/emeraldcity/
2007/10/greenlist-cali-.html (Los Angeles Times column Emerald City She Follows the Road
to Green Living that posts a Greenlist of companies that have environmentally sound
practices); http://www.greenlivingonline.com/tag/Green_List/(use of term Greenlist by the
magazine GreenLiving to commemorate people who have dedicated their lives to protecting the
environment).
22. Unfortunately for consumers, however, the Greenlist designation used by SCJohnson to describe Windex has not been conferred by a non-profit environmental group or
neutral third party as is conveyed by the label. Instead, it is merely the creation of Defendant.
23. Furthermore, despite the representation on its label that Windex containsenvironmentally friendly Greenlist ingredients, Defendants has, in fact, not changed the
ingredients of Windex to remove environmentally harmful ingredients. Namely, one of the key
ingredients of Windex is ethyl glycol n-hexyl ether. This chemical poses serious danger,
including death, if ingested by wildlife and small children. Moreover, because the taste of ethyl
gycol n-hexyl ether is sweet, the risk of it being ingested by wildlife and small children is
multiplied.
Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 6 of 12 Document 1
-
8/6/2019 Complaint -- Petlack v. SC Johnson
7/13
6
24. In other words, Windex is not environmentally responsible or sound as theGreenlist labeling leads one to believe.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
25. Plaintiff brings this action as a nationwide class action pursuant to Rule 23 of theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons who purchased any Windex product
bearing the Greenlist label during the period January 16, 2008 to present (the "Class"). Excluded
from the Class are officers and directors of the Defendant, members of the immediate families of
the officers and directors of the Defendant, and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or
assigns and any entity in which they have or have had a controlling interest.
26. At this time, Plaintiff does not know the exact number of Class members;however, given the immense sales volume of Windex, Plaintiff believes that Class members are
so numerous that joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable.
27. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and factinvolved in this case. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class which
predominate over questions which may affect individual Class members include:
(a) Whether Defendant labeled, marketed, advertised and/or sold its Windexproducts to Plaintiff and those similarly situated using false, misleading and/or deceptive
statements or representations, including statements or representations concerning the
environmental soundness of Windex;
(b) Whether Defendant misrepresented material facts in connection with thesales of its Windex products;
(c) Whether Defendant participated in and pursued the common course ofconduct complained of herein;
Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 7 of 12 Document 1
-
8/6/2019 Complaint -- Petlack v. SC Johnson
8/13
7
(d) Whether Defendants labeling, marketing, advertising and/or selling of itsWindex products with a Greenlist label constitutes an unfair or deceptive consumer sales
practice; and
(e) Whether Defendant was unjustly enriched.28. Plaintiffs claims are typical of those of the Class because Plaintiff, like all
members of the Class, purchased Windex bearing the Greenlist label in a typical consumer
setting and sustained damages from Defendant's wrongful conduct.
29. Plaintiff will adequately protect the interests of the Class and has retained counselwho are experienced in litigating complex class actions. Plaintiff has no interests that conflict
with those of the Class.
30. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficientadjudication of this controversy.
31. The prerequisites to maintaining a class action for injunctive or equitable reliefpursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) are met as Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds
generally applicable to the Class thereby making appropriate final injunctive or equitable relief
with respect to the Class as a whole.
32. The prosecution of separate actions by members of the Class would create a riskof establishing inconsistent rulings and/or incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant. For
example, one court might enjoin Defendant from performing the challenged acts, whereas
another might not. Additionally, individual actions may be dispositive of the interests of the
Class, although certain Class members are not parties to such actions.
33. Defendants conduct is generally applicable to the Class as a whole and Plaintiffseeks, inter alia, equitable remedies with respect to the Class as a whole. As such, Defendants
Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 8 of 12 Document 1
-
8/6/2019 Complaint -- Petlack v. SC Johnson
9/13
8
systematic policies and practices make declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole
appropriate.
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF THE DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT,
WIS. STAT. 100.18(1)
34. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges the paragraphs above as if fully set forthherein.
35. Defendants Greenlist label constitutes false, deceptive and misleadingadvertising in violation of Wisconsins Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA).
36. As set forth above, the Greenlist label is false, deceptive and misleading becauseit causes consumers to believe that Defendants products are environmentally safer than the non-
Greenlist label versions of these products and that products carrying the Greenlist label have
been independently tested and approved as such. In fact, however, as described above, Greenlist
is nothing more than a marketing program designed by Defendant to increase sales of its
products in this environmentally conscious time. Products bearing the Greenlist label have not
been independently tested and have not been reformulated to be environmentally friendly. To
the contrary, products bearing the Greenlist label contain the same toxic chemicals harmful to the
environment and animals as are present in Defendants products without the Greenlist label.
37. Defendant designed the false, misleading and deceptive Greenlist label with intentto sell, distribute and increase the consumption of its products bearing the Greenlist label
including Windex.
38. Defendants violation of the DTPA caused Plaintiff and Class members to sufferpecuniary loss. Specifically, Defendants false, deceptive and misleading Greenlist label caused
Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 9 of 12 Document 1
-
8/6/2019 Complaint -- Petlack v. SC Johnson
10/13
9
consumers to purchase Defendants products believing they were environmentally friendly when,
in fact, they were not.
39. Because Defendants Greenlist marketing program was devised, implemented anddirected from Defendants headquarters in Racine, Wisconsin, the DTPA applies to a class of
purchasers of Defendants products bearing the Greenlist label, both within and outside of
Wisconsin, who have been harmed as a result. Moreover, Wisconsin has a substantial interest in
preventing false, deceptive and misleading practices within the State which may have an effect
both in Wisconsin and throughout the rest of the country.
COUNT II
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
40. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges the paragraphs above as if fully set out herein.41. Plaintiff and Class members conferred a benefit on Defendant when they
purchased products carrying the false, deceptive and misleading Greenlist label.
42. Defendant appreciated and had knowledge of the benefit conferred by Plaintiffand Class members.
43. Defendants acceptance and retention of the benefit conferred by Plaintiff andClass members would be inequitable under the circumstances.
44. Accordingly, equity and good conscience demand that Defendant should returnthe benefit conferred by Plaintiff and Class members.
Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 10 of 12 Document 1
-
8/6/2019 Complaint -- Petlack v. SC Johnson
11/13
10
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
A. Declaring this action to be a proper class action pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23 of a classof all persons who purchased Windex products bearing the Greenlist label during the Class
Period and appointing Plaintiff as representative for the Class and his counsel as Class Counsel;
B. Awarding Plaintiff and the members of the Class compensatory damages in anamount in excess of $5,000,000.00 and all monetary relief referenced in this Complaint;
C. Ordering Defendant to pay restitution to Plaintiff and members of the Class anamount that is the equivalent of the amount acquired by means of any unfair, deceptive,
fraudulent, unconscionable, or negligent act as referenced in this Complaint;
D. Ordering Defendant to disgorge any ill-gotten benefits received from Plaintiff andmembers of the Class as a result of Defendants false, deceptive or misleading labeling,
marketing and advertising of its Windex Greenlist labeled products;
E. Awarding reasonable costs and attorneys' fees;F. Awarding applicable pre-judgment or post-judgment interest; and
G. Awarding such equitable/injunctive or other relief as the Court may deem just and proper
Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 11 of 12 Document 1
-
8/6/2019 Complaint -- Petlack v. SC Johnson
12/13
11
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.
September 29, 2008 REESE RICHMAN LLP
/s/ Michael R. ReeseMichael R. Reese875 Sixth Avenue, 18th FloorNew York, New York 10001Telephone: (212) 579-4625Facsimile: (212) 253-4272
- and -
WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLCDeborah Clark-Weintraub1540 Broadway, 37
thFloor
New York, New York 10036Telephone: (212) 447-7070Facsimile: (212) 447-7077
Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 12 of 12 Document 1
-
8/6/2019 Complaint -- Petlack v. SC Johnson
13/13
top related