On September 25, 2024, the federal district court in Minnesota denied Target Corp.'s motion to dismiss a consumer-fraud action against it featuring claims that a class of consumers were “deliberately misled [] by [Target] labeling certain products in its stores as being ‘Target Clean,’ when such products are in fact ‘unclean.’" Notably, the complaint featured “the allegation that at least one Target Clean Beauty Product literally contains an ingredient on the banned ingredients list.” While this case is still at a relatively early stage of the proceedings--notably, during this phase of a lawsuit, a court must accept all of the allegations in the complaint as true--the fact that a greenwashing case concerning consumer products survived a motion to dismiss is nonetheless significant.

This favorable result for a putative plaintiff class action may lead future plaintiffs and plaintiffs' firms to focus on the consumer goods sector as a key area to develop greenwashing litigation. Indeed, given the rise of other private lawsuits and SEC enforcement actions in this space, it would hardly be surprising if this development further amplified that trend. Further, the detailed decision issued by the court offers what could be deemed a “road map” for future litigation, which subsequent litigants will likely adhere to when developing their own cases. 

Finally, it should be noted that a common fact pattern appears to feature in these type of greenwashing lawsuits. Here, the Court described the circumstances as “plaintiffs alleg[ing] that the Target Clean program is noting more than a corporate ”greenwashing" scheme that uses Target's goodwill and reputation to dishonestly piggyback on a growing consumer demand for safer, cleaner, and more natural products." Plaintiffs' attorneys are seizing upon widespread skepticism with respect to corporate sustainability claims when bringing this type of lawsuit.