Reynolds Consumer Products, the manufacturer of Reynolds Wrap aluminium foil, faces a proposed class action alleging deceptive advertising. The lawsuit contends that despite labelling its foil as "Made in USA," the company primarily sources its raw materials and conducts manufacturing operations elsewhere. The complaint, filed on March 27, 2024 evening, asserts that most of the bauxite used by Reynolds comes from international sources, with the United States contributing only a minor fraction to global bauxite production.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Manhattan, additionally alleges that a significant portion of the bauxite is processed into alumina and, subsequently, aluminium outside of the United States.
According to the complaint, Reynolds' "Foil Made in USA" claim on its packaging is false and misleading to reasonable consumers because they "value buying products made in America".
Reynolds, headquartered in Lake Forest, Illinois, declined to comment, stating its policy of not discussing ongoing legal matters. The lawsuit, spearheaded by Anaya Washington from Bronx, New York, aims to secure damages of at least $5 million for New Yorkers who purchased Reynolds Wrap aluminium foil within the past three years.
Washington mentioned purchasing her foil from Target because she trusted the Reynolds Wrap brand. She likened it to the familiarity of Kleenex and Vaseline and expressed a preference for supporting American-made products. However, she stated she would have purchased it if she had known its origin.
One among numerous lawsuits alleges that companies employ inadequately specific labelling tactics to persuade consumers to pay higher prices, often appealing to their sense of patriotism.
In 2021, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission implemented a "Made in USA Labelling Rule," referenced in the complaint, to safeguard businesses and consumers against deceptive claims regarding product origins.
The lawsuit, identified as Washington v Reynolds Consumer Products LLC, is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under case number 24-02327.
Responses
