An Illinois federal court recently rejected efforts to bring a consumer class action against the parent company of Fiji brand water over allegations that its plastic water bottles contained microplastics.  In doing so, the court added its voice to the growing body of case law about microplastics and offered a window into how to attack similar types of contamination allegations.

In Daly et al. v. The Wonderful Company, LLC, 2025 WL 672913 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 3, 2025) plaintiffs alleged that Fiji’s claim that its water is “natural artesian water” are deceptive because the product bottles contain microplastics.  Id. at *1.  Plaintiffs brought claims under five state consumer protection laws and sought to represent a class of consumers allegedly harmed by microplastics in the bottles.  Id.  The company moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing (among other things) that plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the Fiji Water bottles actually contained microplastics and that plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief.  Id. at *2, *6.  Because plaintiffs failed to allege that the water bottles contained microplastics, TWG argued that they could not identify any deceptive statement giving rise to their claims.  Id. at *6.    

On March 3, the court agreed and dismissed plaintiffs’ complaint for two reasons.

On March 12, 2025, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Public Notice to announce it is seeking comment on whether any FCC rules, regulations or guidance documents should be removed due to the stated purpose of “alleviating unnecessary regulatory burdens.”  The FCC opened the new “In Re: Delete, Delete, Delete” docket, GN Docket No. 25-133, to receive filings from interested parties.

This action follows a number of recent actions by the Trump Administration focused on deregulation, such as the “Executive Order on Implementing the President’s Department of Government Efficiency Cost Efficiency Initiative,” which established new restrictions on the federal contracting process.

The Public Notice requests that commenters consider the following policy factors when responding:

  • Cost-benefit considerations – what cost-benefit analysis should be undertaken by the Commission in determining whether the cost of a particular regulation exceeds the benefit it brings to society.   
  • Experience gained from the implementation of the rule – whether the application of a given rule, either as currently interpreted or otherwise, reasonably supports the conclusion that the rule is “unnecessary or inappropriate.”

As explained in a prior blog post, on January 21, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”) (the “EO”), establishing new requirements for federal contractors and grant recipients to agree that their compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws is “material to the government’s payment decisions” for purposes of the False Claims Act (“FCA”) and to certify that they do not operate any “programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.”  On February 21, a federal judge in the District of Maryland granted a preliminary injunction to block these and other portions of the EO, including potential FCA enforcement actions based on the certification provision, as well as a provision of Executive Order 14151 (“Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”).

In January 2025, the German Supervisory Authority of Hamburg (“HSA”) examined the practices of online retailers based in Hamburg as to whether they allowed consumers to make purchases without creating a user account. This was mentioned in a press release issued by the HSA regarding a ruling by the Hamburg Higher Regional Court confirming a HSA’s decision that online retailers may, in certain circumstances, require consumers to create a user account. This, in turn, follows the guidance published by the German supervisory authorities (“German SAs”) in 2022 (in German), which stated that online retailers generally may not require consumers to create a user account in order to make a purchase.

On March 13, 2025, the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”) ruled that the right of rectification (in Article 16 GDPR) requires a national authority to correct a person’s gender identity, where it is shown to be inaccurate (Case C‑247/23 [Deldits]).  The authority, however, may require that person to provide relevant and sufficient evidence to establish that the information concerning their gender is inaccurate, but may not go so far as to require proof of gender reassignment surgery.

On Thursday March 13, 2025, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced proposed legislation to expand New York’s consumer protection law: the Fostering Affordability and Integrity through Reasonable (FAIR) Business Practices Act (“the Act”). The Act would update and expand New York’s current consumer protection law, Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law (“GBL”), to encompass a broader range of practices and claims.

The current versions of Sections 349 and 350 make unlawful certain deceptive business acts and practices and false advertising.  The Act would amend Section 349 to cover not only “deceptive” business acts and practices, but also conduct that may fall under vague definitions of “unfair” and “abusive” acts and practices.  The Act would further expand Section 349 by making it applicable “regardless of whether or not that act or practice is consumer-oriented [or] has a public impact or impact on consumers ….” The Act would also increase statutory damages to $1,000 and grant standing to organizations and third parties to the fullest extent otherwise permitted by law. However, the Act would also create affirmative defenses that limit plaintiffs to individuals and small entities, and excludes acts or practices that could be addressed by federal securities or intellectual property laws or that involve “high-value experienced commercial transaction[s]” directed exclusively to the parties to such transactions.

On 12 March, the European Commission responded to the imposition of new U.S. tariffs on EU steel and aluminum imports.  The Commission pledged to implement “swift and proportionate countermeasures on U.S. imports into the EU,” signaling a firm stance while leaving the door open for future negotiations.

Announced Countermeasures under the Enforcement Regulation

The EU’s response is made up of two measures:

  • The reinstatement of 2018 and 2020 EU additional ad valorem duties on certain U.S. imports (“Old Rebalancing Measures”):  In 2018, the first Trump Administration introduced 25% and 10% tariffs on EU steel and aluminum exports, respectively, under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962.  As a response, the EU adopted a list of additional ad valorem duties on certain U.S. imports.  In 2020, the first Trump Administration extended the tariffs to cover certain steel and aluminum derivative products.  The EU then adopted a broader list of additional ad valorem duties on certain U.S. imports.  Adopted under the Enforcement Regulation, these Old Rebalancing Measures were designed to maximize political pressure on the first Trump Administration to rescind its tariffs.  They were suspended in 2023 following an agreement with the Biden Administration.As the suspension of the Old Rebalancing Measures expires automatically on 31 March, the Commission will reimpose them.  These Old Rebalancing Measures cover approximately €8 billion worth of EU imports from the U.S., intended to be proportionate to addressing the economic damage inflicted by the U.S. tariffs, and concern products ranging from boats to bourbon to motorbikes.
  • New EU measures under Article 5 of the Enforcement Regulation (“New Rebalancing Measures”):  In response to the fresh U.S. tariffs impacting another €18 billion of EU exports, the Commission now plans to roll out new or additional ad valorem duties under Article 5 of the Enforcement Regulation (see the suggested product list).  A stakeholder consultation is open for comment from 12–26 March, gathering input from affected industries.  Following this, the Commission will draft an implementing act and consult Member States through the comitology procedure (as provided by the Enforcement Regulation).  The implementing act is scheduled to take effect mid-April, bringing the total value of U.S. exports potentially impacted by the Old and New Rebalancing Measures to €26 billion.