(Photo credit: Quality Stock Arts/Shutterstock)

7-Eleven recyclable product class action summary:

  • Who: A federal judge in Illinois has dismissed several charges against 7-Eleven for marketing “recyclable” products.
  • why: A judge ruled that a product can be advertised as recyclable even though most centers in the country cannot.
  • Where: The 7-Eleven class action lawsuit is being heard in federal court in Illinois.

Illinois federal judge dismisses part of class action lawsuit against retailers while 7-Eleven promotes recyclable products even though most centers in the country don’t have the facilities to recycle them We are not deceiving consumers by doing so.

In an order filed September 14 in Illinois federal court, U.S. District Judge Steven C. Seeger dismissed part of a class action lawsuit filed against 7-Eleven by plaintiff Devon Curtis.

The lawsuit was aimed at certain disposable plates and cups sold by the store, and it would be wrong to label them as “recyclable” when most recycling centers in the country do not currently recycle them. claimed.

Judge Seeger, however, disagreed with plaintiffs’ arguments regarding the definition of the word “recyclable.”

“‘Recyclable’ means ‘can be recycled,'” wrote Judge Seeger. “It doesn’t mean ‘recycled’. It doesn’t mean “probably recycled”. It does not mean “easy to recycle”. It doesn’t mean that it’s destined for a new life by recycling it in an economically prosperous facility near where you bought it.

Lawsuit claims 7-Eleven products are not compatible with recycling

Curtis alleges that 7-Eleven misled customers by marking certain disposable products under its 24/7 Life brand as recyclable when they were not.

Plastic and foam products could not be recycled because most recycling centers were not equipped with them or they were made from materials they chose not to recycle, she said. On the other hand, some 24/7 products don’t have the labels that recycling centers need to sort plastics by material type.

The claim under the definition of recycling was dismissed, but Judge Seeger ruled that the other claims could proceed.

News comes as 7-Eleven faces class action lawsuit Claiming to mislead consumers, it markets JUUL e-cigarettes as a “safer, or at least equivalent” cigarette alternative.

Seven-Eleven was attacked in April another class action lawsuit It claims to use facial recognition technology to collect and store biometric data without customer consent.

What do you think about this 7-Eleven class action ruling? Let us know your thoughts in the comments!

Plaintiffs are represented by Eugene Y Turin, Andrew T. Heldut and Colin Primo Buscarini of McGuire Law PC.

of 7-Eleven Recycled Product Class Action Lawsuit teeth Curtis vs 7-Eleven., Case No. 1:21-cv-06079, United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Read more about class action lawsuits and class action settlements:

We’ll tell you about the cash you can claim every week! Sign up for our free newsletter.

Note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source covering class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits, and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process billing. We also cannot advise on the status of class action settlement claims. For up-to-date information regarding the status of your claim, the claim form, or any questions regarding when payments will be mailed, you should contact the Settlement Administrator or your attorney.

Related article

7-Eleven class action lawsuit over recycling marketing partially dismissed

Fiberglass Mattress Contamination Class Action Investigation

Ashley Furniture Class Action Claims Service Agreement Is Misleading, False Advertising

Allura Fiber Cement Siding $12.5 Million Class Action Settlement

Crock-Pot lawsuit alleges faulty lid removal leads to burns

Pyrex class action lawsuit alleges products are falsely advertised as ‘dishwasher safe’

Lawsuit claims Keurig coffee maker has faulty descaling solution

Kleenex Class Action Claims Wet Wipes Falsely Advertise To Remove Bacteria And No Harsh Chemicals

Class Action Claims Target, CVS, And Others Falsely Advertise Peroxide Benefits

Zinus Green Tea Mattress Class Action Claims Product Leaks Fiberglass Fibers

NAPA, Warren, Carquest, Coastal, Lubriguard Tractor Fluids $10.85 Million Class Action Settlement

Oral-B Class Action Claims Dental Floss Contains Permanently Toxic Chemicals

Febreze class action lawsuit claims product doesn’t actually eliminate odors

Target class action lawsuit alleges retailers did not offer pre-sale access to product warranties

ECOS Class Action Claims Product’s ‘Non-Toxic’ Claims Are Inaccurate

Targeted Class Action Claims Hydrogen Peroxide Benefits Are False Advertising

Tesla class-action lawsuit over solar roof tile prices shrinks

Williams-Sonoma Class Action Continues Over Bedding Thread Count

WipeOut class action lawsuit claims antimicrobial wipes were falsely advertised as EPA-approved

Coppertone class action lawsuit alleges face sunscreens are being marketed falsely

Source link

By admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *