A federal judge has dismissed a class action lawsuit seeking to hold The Children’s Place financially liable for selling school uniforms that allegedly contained PFAS chemicals.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly issued an opinion April 1 dismissing a complaint from Illinoisan Angela Garland and Floridian Joelis Saldana, who proposed a nationwide class and alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fairness Act and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, along with counts for unjust enrichment and fraudulent concealment.
According to their complaint, the uniforms contain polyfluoroalkyl substances known as PFAS, which they asserted make the clothing toxic. The lawsuit claims customers would either have not bought the clothes or should have paid less for what they did purchase. Although Kennelly rejected The Children’s Place's argument the plaintiffs lacked standing, he did agree they have, for now, failed to state a claim.
The plaintiffs said they submitted dozens of clothing items for third-party testing which found direct or indirect evidence of PFAS chemicals, and accused the retailer of making misleading statements. However, Kennelly noted the complaint does not allege either plaintiff was aware of those statements before ordering their clothes online.
Although The Children’s Place sought dismissal on grounds the plaintiffs didn’t allege every item they purchased contained PFAS, Kennelly said the claim was sufficient to establish the court’s jurisdiction, even if the amount of tainted products they bought surfaces later for issues like calculating damages. He further said factual disputes about which chemicals testing found and in what quantities are factual disputes to be considered further into proceedings.
Kennelly further said The Children’s Place attempted to challenge the plaintiffs’ ability to represent the entire class based on allegations covering products they didn’t purchase. But that question also is suited for later in the process, while addressing class certification, and improper for attempting to show a lack of standing. He used the same frame regarding concerns over the plaintiffs’ claims covering shoppers who lived outside Illinois or Florida.
The Children’s Place did successfully argue the plaintiffs cannot pursue an injunction, as the allegations they presented establish they are unlikely to suffer a future injury because they won’t buy any more clothes from the company, which “has no state or federal obligation to sell PFAS-free clothing.”
Turning to the ability to state a claim under Illinois laws, Kennelly wrote the complaint makes no allegations the chain’s “advertisements, retail website, or clothing tags affirmatively stated that its school uniform products were PFAS-free. Nor have the plaintiffs alleged that they encountered any statements by TCP that were misleading or ‘half-truths’ as a result of TCP's failure to mention PFAS.”
The only statements plausibly making such assertions were on the corporate website and in a 2021 environment, social and governance report, but the plaintiffs didn’t allege they saw those documents before ordering clothes. That leaves the claims resting on allegations of nondisclosure, which Kennelly said isn’t applicable in this circumstance as the plaintiffs’ own allegations allege the company “used chemicals that are legally and commonly used in apparel — including in U.S. children's school uniforms specifically — and that these facts were widely published in the mainstream media.”
Kennelly further said it’s not plausible reasonable consumers would assume a company who makes no such promises nonetheless offers PFAS-free clothing. He said the complaint fails to plausibly accuse The Children’s Place of “immoral, unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous” actions nor did it show shoppers are unable to source alternative uniforms or fairly evaluate published prices.
The Florida state law claims suffer a similar fate, Kennelly said, further agreeing the claims for fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment are insufficient. There are no allegations the sale of the products was illegal or of their children suffering harm as a result of wearing the uniforms.
Kennelly gave the plaintiffs until April 23 to propose an amendment “including at least one viable claim over which the court has jurisdiction,” otherwise he will enter judgment against them.
In a statement emailed to The Cook County Record following the ruling, The Children’s Place said: “We are pleased with the court’s decision to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint, reinforcing our position that the claims were based on a highly flawed argument.”
The plaintiffs are represented by E. Samuel Geisler, Bryan F. Aylstock, and D. Nicole Guntner, of Aylstock, Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz, of Pensacola, Florida; and Marcus J. Bradley, Kiley L. Grombacher and Robert N. Fisher, of Bradley/Grombacher, of Westlake Village, California.
Representing The Children's Place are David M. Poell, P. Craig Cardon, Jeffrey J. Parker and Abby H. Meyer, of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, of Chicago and Los Angeles.