By Olive Latham-Hill.
The Complaint:
In August of 2025 Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes sued Reynolds Consumer Products alleging that the company lied to Arizona consumers through misleading packaging of their Hefty trashbags. The claim specifically alleged that Reynolds “deceptively marketed its ‘Recycling,’ ‘Clear,’ and ‘Blue’ bags as both recyclable and for use when bagging recyclables for curbside programs, knowing that the bags were not recyclable and would likely render the contents unrecyclable due to the plastic bag’s adverse effects for recycling centers.” In other words, the claim alleges that Reynolds was “promoting a feature that the products are incapable of possessing.”
The complaint further alleges that Reynolds, in response to the lower consumption of standard trash bags due to a nationwide push towards recycling, created its “Recycling” line of trashbags to capitalize on the movement. Attorney General Mayes grounded her argument on the premise that the average global consumer believes that recycling more is the most impactful change they can make to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This premise is supported by research conducted by Ispos, a market research company.
Because these bags are not in fact recyclable, the use of them by Arizona consumers who want to do their part results in otherwise recyclable materials ultimately being diverted to landfills. Additionally, Mayes claims the bags had the potential to become entangled in the recycling facility. This concern is common among other states as well, with Mayes citing cases brought by Connecticut and Minnesota.
The Settlement:
In February 2026, the case settled, with Reynolds agreeing to pay a $157,000 fine to Arizona, $30,000 in restitution, and $25,000 in costs and attorney’s fees. Beyond financial remedies, the settlement also required injunctive relief. Reynolds is permanently enjoined from “marketing or selling plastic bags labeled as ‘recycling bags’ under the Hefty brand in Arizona, unless the bags are accepted for recycling at a substantial majority of the recycling facilities within the State of Arizona.” The settlement did not neglect online shoppers either, as it required that Reynolds “include language to educate consumers about the limited availability of bagged recyclable pick up, and shall notify consumers that the Hefty blue and clear transparent bags should be used in participating municipal programs only.”
Significantly, Reynolds is also required to redesign the packing of its transparent clear and blue bags. The packing must remove misleading images that imply that the bags can be used for curbside pickup or in municipal recycling bins. The packing must also include the phrase “These Bags Are Not Recyclable.”
Implications of Interstate Influence:
Interestingly, the packaging redesign requirements will be implemented nationwide. The coast-to-coast effects of the remedy are by far the most impactful aspect of the settlement. The $212,000 in penalties and even the $80,000 estimated cost to redesign the packaging is minimal in a class action of this size. The real impact of this settlement on Reynolds and other national companies is the possibility of forced nationwide compliance as a result of a state suit, and that states appear to be influenced by each other’s actions. The Reynolds settlement exemplifies the interstate influence of coordinated litigation in two major ways.
First, states are beginning to realize the power of their collusion on corporate compliance. The Attorneys General for the states of Connecticut and Minnesota brought nearly identical claims against Reynolds before the Arizona suit, and Mayes was able to use those suits as a blueprint. This technique in which states are able to test different litigation strategies to strong arm companies into compliance with regulations might prove to be an extremely useful tool for novel environmental claims that depend on consumer protection laws. Of course, this sort of multi-state litigation strategy may alternatively produce a reduction in cases brought against national companies due to the potential windfall to states who benefit from nationwide relief. A state may be compelled to wait for another state to pursue litigation against a company if there is reason to believe sweeping nationwide relief will be awarded, as in Arizona v. Reynolds Consumer Products, Inc.
Second, it is likely that Arizona, Connecticut, and Minnesota were in part influenced to bring their respective claims in response to the legislative efforts of other states. Significantly, in 2021 California enacted SB 343, which defines what qualifies as recyclable in the state of California. Namely, the Act prohibits the use of the chasing-arrows symbol, and other recyclability claims on packing unless the product meets the 60/60 Rule. The 60/60 Rule prohibits the use of recycling indicators on a product unless it is collected by programs that serve at least 60% of California’s population and sorted by facilities serving at least 60% of the state’s recycling programs. This Act’s enforceability is currently in question as a result of the preliminary injunction issued in California League of Food Producers v. Bonta barring California Attorney General Rob Bonta from enforcing the Act. Nonetheless, SB 343 has fired up a conversation concerning the best practices to protect consumers and state recycling facilities from corporate greenwashing.
Conclusion:
The Reynolds settlement is undoubtedly a victory against greenwashing and sham environmental claims, but leaves many questions unanswered for the future of environmental litigation that utilizes the consumer protection approach. In many ways, this case adds to the snowball of actions taken by other states such as California, Connecticut, and Minnesota against misleading environmental claims. It does not, however, indicate whether Arizona will in the future advocate for or attempt to pass legislation similar to SB 343 to promote more consistent guidelines and corporate behavior in the State. Ad-hoc suits commenced by Kris Mayes have worked this time, but there is little guidance for the future of Arizona greenwashing consumer protection.
Olive Latham-Hill is a second-year law student at Arizona State University Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. She has a background in cognitive neuroscience from the University of Virginia and has enjoyed learning about many areas of law, including Intellectual Property, Environmental Law, and Constitutional Law. Outside of school, Olive enjoys running (especially with her peers in ASU Law’s Run Club), snowboarding/surfing, cooking/baking, and yoga. She hopes to practice law in D.C. and California in the future, and is excited to see what comes after her time at ASU!
