Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—S.D.N.Y.: Class certified in case over aluminum foil’s ‘MADE IN USA’ labeling, (Aug 3, 2026)

By Thomas K. Lauletta, J.D.

The consumers allege that the price premium, of approximately $4.99 per 75 square feet, was a result of Defendant’s intentionally false and misleading representations.

The U.S. District Court in New York, N.Y. certified a class of consumers in a dispute against a leading manufacturer of aluminum foil over its product label stating its “FOIL MADE IN USA.” The consumers allege that this product label was deceptive and false advertising under New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350 for deceptive acts or practices and false advertising. The consumers allege that the label is deceptive because the raw materials used in the production of the defendant’s foil products were sourced from outside of the United States. Not passing on the substantive merits of the consumers’ case, the district court held that they met the requirements to certify their proposed class under Federal Rule 23 (Washington v. Reynolds Consumer Products LLC, No 1:24-cv-02327-ALC (S.D.N.Y. Jul. 30, 2026)).

Defendant Reynolds Consumer Products manufactures “Reynolds Wrap” brand aluminum foil and includes on its product the statement: “FOIL MADE IN U.S.A.”

The plaintiff consumers allege that the product statement led them to believe that the raw materials to create the foil were sourced within the United States. Acting on this belief, the consumers allege that they paid more for the product than they would have if they had known that the foil had been manufactured from raw materials from outside of the United States. The consumers state that the sole commercial ore of aluminum is bauxite. Because U.S. mined bauxite is less than 0.1 percent of the world production of that mineral, it would have been impossible for the plaintiff to produce its aluminum products solely from U.S.-sourced bauxite.

The consumers currently move for their putative class action class to be certified by the court. The consumers allege that they paid a price premium of approximately $4.99 per 75 square feet higher than they would have paid without the plaintiff’s “MADE IN U.S.A.” labeling.

Class certification requirements. To meet the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule 23(a), the four requirements must be met: (1) numerosity, (2) commonality, (3) typicality, and (4) adequacy of representation. Additionally, under Federal Rule 23(b), it must be shown that the questions of law or fact of the proposed class members predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and that a class action is superior to other methods available for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The court analyzed these requirements separately.

Numerosity. The court stated that although there was not a bright line rule for the minimum number of parties necessary for joinder under Federal Rule 23(a)(1), numerosity is presumed for classes larger than forty members. The court held that the numerosity requirement was easily satisfied here.

Commonality and predominance. The court analyzed together the requirements for commonality and predominance, holding that common questions of law and fact existed, and a class wide proceeding would generate common answers to drive the resolution of the litigation.

Typicality. Here, all the consumers were exposed to the “FOIL MADE IN U.S.A.” label and they allege that they relied on this representation to pay higher prices for the product. The court held that the claims of the class representatives are typical of those of the class and the typicality requirement was met.

Adequacy. The adequacy requirement states that the class representative must “fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.” To determine adequacy, courts evaluate “whether: 1) plaintiff's interests are antagonistic to the interest of other members of the class and 2) plaintiff's attorneys are qualified, experienced and able to conduct the litigation.” The court concluded that the adequacy requirement was met because the consumers’ representatives had no known conflicting interests with the proposed members of the class and the court was satisfied with the competency of the plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Ascertainability. Beyond the requirements of Federal Rule 23, the Second Circuit states that ascertainability is satisfied where a class is “sufficiently definite so that it is administratively feasible for the court to determine whether a particular individual is a member.” This will be satisfied where the class is identified by subject matter, timing, and location. Here, the proposed class is comprised of all persons who purchased Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil labeled with the words “FOIL MADE IN U.S.A.” in New York from March 27, 2021, to the present. The court found that the requirement of ascertainability was thus established.

Superiority. The court held that the consumers’ representatives established that a class action was superior to other available methods to decide the controversy, a fact that the defendant did not contest.

Predominance. Predominance requires that the proposed class is “sufficiently cohesive to warrant adjudication by representation.” The court stated that the plaintiff met the first element for a prima facie claim under N.Y. Gen. Bus Law §§ 349 and 350 because all proposed class members saw the “FOIL MADE IN U.S.A.” label on the defendant’s product.

The second element was met because common evidence is required to determine the materiality of the allegedly deceptive representation.

Finally, under the last element, the plaintiffs must allege injury. They are not required to prove injury, only that the class-wide questions predominate. Plaintiffs offered a viable and reliable damages model consistent with their theory of liability. Thus, injury and relief are common questions, and Plaintiffs satisfy predominance, the court concluded.

Court action. The district court granted the plaintiff consumer’s motion to certify their proposed class.

The Case is No. 1:24-cv-02327-ALC.

Judge: Carter, Jr., A.

Attorneys: Spencer Sheehan (Sheehan & Associates, P.C.) for Anaya Washington. Robert J. Herrington (Greenberg Traurig, LLP) for Reynolds Consumer Products LLC.

Companies: Reynolds Consumer Products LLC

Cases: Advertising StateUnfairTradePractices NewYorkNews