Fiji Water and its parent, The Wonderful Company, have been sued several times over the past fifteen years for what plaintiffs describe as deceptive environmental marketing. The Fiji Water lawsuits fall into two waves: a 2010 class action attacking the brand’s “carbon negative” claim, and a newer set of cases challenging its “natural,” recyclable, and sustainability labeling in light of alleged microplastic contamination. Two of those suits have been dismissed. One, filed by the Plastic Pollution Coalition in Washington, D.C., cleared a motion to dismiss in August 2025 and is now in active litigation.
The Active D.C. Consumer Protection Case
On January 31, 2025, the Plastic Pollution Coalition, a project of the Earth Island Institute, sued The Wonderful Company, LLC and FIJI Water, LLC in D.C. Superior Court under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act.1Plastic Pollution Coalition. Plastic Pollution Coalition Files False and Deceptive Marketing Complaint Against Makers of Fiji Water
The complaint targets two categories of marketing. First, it argues that describing the water as “natural artesian water,” “protected from external elements,” and “untouched” is misleading because independent laboratory testing has detected microplastics and bisphenol-A (BPA) in the product. Second, it challenges the company’s sustainability messaging, including claims of “promoting a circular economy,” a “substantial step in reducing plastic waste,” and “100% Recycled Plastic” bottle labeling, arguing that most collected bottles are never actually recycled.2Plastic Pollution Coalition. Plastic Pollution Coalition Lawsuit Page
The coalition is not seeking money damages. It wants a court order declaring the marketing unlawful and an injunction stopping the company from using the challenged claims.1Plastic Pollution Coalition. Plastic Pollution Coalition Files False and Deceptive Marketing Complaint Against Makers of Fiji Water A Fiji Water spokesperson called the lawsuit “frivolous,” saying the company sources its water from a natural artesian aquifer and does not use BPA in its bottles or caps.3Newsweek. Fiji Water Lawsuit Raises Concerns About Microplastics
The defendants moved to dismiss on April 18, 2025. On August 7, 2025, Judge Ebony M. Scott denied the motion, finding that the coalition had plausibly alleged its claims about both the sustainability marketing and the “natural” labeling. The court cited its own earlier ruling in a parallel case against Danone Waters of America to support its conclusion that federal law does not preempt consumer-protection claims under the D.C. statute.4Earth Island Institute. PPC v. Wonderful Company, MTD Decision The defendants were ordered to answer by August 21, 2025, and a scheduling conference was set for August 8, 2025.5Earth Island Institute. Water Microplastics Lawsuit
The Dismissed Microplastics Class Action (Daly v. The Wonderful Company)
In 2024, a separate class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In Daly v. The Wonderful Company, LLC (Case No. 24 C 1267), plaintiffs alleged that labeling Fiji Water as “Natural Artesian Water” was deceptive because the product purportedly contained microplastics.6ClassAction.org. Fiji Bottled Water Is Contaminated With Microplastics, Class Action Claims
On March 3, 2025, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly dismissed the amended complaint. The court found the allegations “conclusory and unsupported” because the plaintiffs had not claimed that any Fiji Water product had actually been tested for microplastics; the studies they cited involved other brands.6ClassAction.org. Fiji Bottled Water Is Contaminated With Microplastics, Class Action Claims The plaintiffs sought leave to file a second amended complaint, this time claiming their lawyers had conducted testing confirming microplastics and had retained an expert, Dr. James V. Cidziel, for further analysis. On May 7, 2025, Judge Kennelly denied that motion too, ruling that the plaintiffs had received sufficient opportunities to state a viable claim. The case was dismissed with prejudice.7U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Daly et al. v. The Wonderful Company LLC, Entry 54
The 2010 “Carbon Negative” Class Action
The first significant suit came in December 2010, when a class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of Desiree Worthington, a Santa Ana resident. The suit named Fiji Water Company LLC and its then-parent, Roll International Corporation.8Trellis. Fiji Water Sued Over Claim Product Is Carbon Negative Worthington alleged that the company’s prominent “carbon negative” branding was false and misleading, and that she had paid a premium for the water because of that environmental promise.9Mother Jones. Fiji Water Sued for Greenwashing
Fiji Water had announced the carbon-negative campaign in November 2007, pledging to offset 120 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions.8Trellis. Fiji Water Sued Over Claim Product Is Carbon Negative The complaint focused on the accounting method behind the claim: “forward crediting,” in which anticipated future carbon reductions from tree planting were counted as though they had already occurred. Plaintiffs argued that the offsets would not actually be realized until 2037, making the present-tense “carbon negative” label deceptive. Fiji Water reported producing 85,396 metric tons of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases in 2007, while its 250 acres of planted rainforest stored roughly 400 metric tons of carbon.9Mother Jones. Fiji Water Sued for Greenwashing
The case never reached a ruling on the merits. Worthington filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice on February 17, 2011, ending the lawsuit about two months after it was filed.10PlainSite. Desiree Worthington v. Fiji Water Company LLC et al. There is no public record of a settlement or any payment to the plaintiff.
How These Cases Fit the Broader Greenwashing Trend
The Fiji Water suits are part of a larger wave of litigation testing environmental marketing by consumer brands. The Plastic Pollution Coalition’s complaint is one of three similar cases the organization has brought under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act. In a parallel case against Danone Waters of America, the D.C. Superior Court denied a motion to dismiss on March 18, 2025, allowing claims about “natural” and “sustainable” labeling to proceed. A third complaint, against PepsiCo over its Aquafina branding, was filed on April 7, 2025.11Plastic Pollution Coalition. PepsiCo, Fiji Water, and Danone Face Marketing Lawsuits in D.C.
Courts elsewhere have gone different ways on recyclability and “green” claims. Some federal judges have dismissed suits challenging “100% recyclable” labels, reasoning that the term refers to a product’s inherent capacity to be recycled rather than a guarantee it will be. Others have let similar cases move forward, and a Keurig recyclability suit resulted in a $10 million settlement. The FTC is currently reviewing its Green Guides, the federal framework for evaluating environmental marketing claims, and has acknowledged that consumer understanding of terms like “recyclable” often does not match the industry’s preferred definitions.12Harvard Environmental Law Review. Applying Consumer Protection Basics to Greenwashing Recyclability Cases
With the D.C. case now past the motion-to-dismiss stage, it will be an early test of whether a court ultimately finds that marketing bottled water as “natural” and recyclable crosses into deception when the product contains trace contaminants and most of its packaging is never actually recycled.