The proposed class action against Handi-Craft Company over Dr. Brown’s baby bottles is over. A federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed the Dr. Brown’s baby bottle lawsuit on April 29, 2025, and the plaintiffs voluntarily dropped the case the following month rather than try to fix the complaint.1State Impact Center. Plaintiffs’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Entry 48
What the Lawsuit Claimed
Two California residents, Alejandrina Cortez and Tuliisa Miller, filed the suit on June 25, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The case, Cortez et al. v. Handi-Craft Company, Inc. (No. 4:24-cv-03782), was assigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.2CourtListener. Miller v. Handi-Craft Company Inc.
The plaintiffs, represented by the Clarkson Law Firm, argued that Handi-Craft marketed Dr. Brown’s bottles and sippy cups as safe for infants while hiding a basic problem: heating the polypropylene plastic during ordinary use releases microplastics into whatever the baby drinks. Six products were named, including the Dr. Brown’s Natural Flow Anti-Colic Options+ bottles in narrow and wide-neck versions and four Dr. Brown’s Milestones sippy and straw bottles.3State Impact Center. Class Action Complaint, Cortez et al. v. Handi-Craft Company Inc.
The complaint singled out two marketing messages as deceptive: the “BPA Free” label and the “#1 Pediatrician Recommended” tagline. Both, the plaintiffs argued, gave parents a false sense of security. The suit brought claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, plus breach of warranty and unjust enrichment, and it sought more than $5 million in damages along with orders requiring the company to disclose the microplastic risk or redesign the products.3State Impact Center. Class Action Complaint, Cortez et al. v. Handi-Craft Company Inc.
Why the Court Dismissed the Case
Handi-Craft moved to dismiss, arguing that microplastics are “inescapable” in the environment and that the alleged health risks remain “unproven.”4Reuters. Baby Bottle Maker Says Microplastics Inescapable, Health Risks Unproven, in Bid to Toss Lawsuit The court agreed the complaint didn’t hold together, though it dismissed without prejudice and gave the plaintiffs a chance to amend.
The central problem was the safety threshold. Under California’s consumer protection statutes, a company’s duty to disclose a hazard turns on whether the hazard is unreasonable. The plaintiffs argued that no amount of microplastics is safe for infants, but the court rejected that framing. Requiring disclosure of any conceivable risk, no matter how speculative, would stretch the duty past its limits. The complaint never identified a specific exposure level at which microplastics from Dr. Brown’s products become unreasonably unsafe for children.5American Bar Association. Emerging Issues in Microplastics Litigation
The court also found the plaintiffs hadn’t plausibly alleged that Handi-Craft actually knew about an unreasonable hazard. The scientific studies attached to the complaint were publicly available and discussed general risks of polypropylene plastics rather than anything about Dr. Brown’s products specifically. Those studies, the court noted, offered only “general conclusions about the potential health risks associated with microplastics.”6Shook, Hardy & Bacon. Material Concerns Newsletter
Several smaller defects rounded out the ruling. The plaintiffs hadn’t alleged they actually saw or relied on the “BPA Free” and “#1 Pediatrician Recommended” labels when they bought the bottles. They hadn’t complied with the CLRA’s pre-suit notice requirement. And they hadn’t shown standing for the injunctive relief they were asking for.6Shook, Hardy & Bacon. Material Concerns Newsletter
Why the Plaintiffs Walked Away
The dismissal gave the plaintiffs room to file an amended complaint. They chose not to. On May 20, 2025, they filed a notice of voluntary dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), ending the case without prejudice.1State Impact Center. Plaintiffs’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Entry 48
Without prejudice means the plaintiffs could refile in theory. In practice, the court’s opinion set a demanding bar for any second attempt: any new complaint would need to identify a specific, scientifically grounded exposure threshold and connect it directly to Dr. Brown’s products. The publicly available studies the plaintiffs already had didn’t do that work.
The Parallel Philips Avent Case Went the Other Way
The Clarkson Law Firm filed a nearly identical suit against Philips North America over Avent-brand bottles on the same day, June 25, 2024. That case, Miller et al. v. Philips North America LLC (No. 24-cv-03781-RFL), went to a different judge and produced a different result.7ClassAction.org. Philips Avent, Dr. Brown’s Baby Bottles and Cups Leach Microplastics, Class Action Lawsuits Allege
On February 20, 2025, Judge Rita F. Lin ruled that the plaintiffs in the Philips case had alleged enough to proceed. The same kind of scientific studies the Handi-Craft judge found too general, Judge Lin found sufficient to establish a “plausible connection” between microplastic exposure from the bottles and potential harm to infants. Restitution and unjust enrichment claims survived; warranty claims were dismissed for good; injunctive relief claims were dismissed with leave to amend.8State Impact Center. Order on Motion to Dismiss, Miller et al. v. Philips North America LLC
Even after clearing that hurdle, the Philips Avent case was also dismissed by the plaintiffs before reaching a decision on the merits, according to the American Bar Association’s litigation newsletter.5American Bar Association. Emerging Issues in Microplastics Litigation Both bottle makers walked away without a merits ruling against them.
What the Science Actually Shows
The lawsuit leaned heavily on a 2020 study by researchers at Trinity College Dublin, published in Nature Food. When infant formula was prepared in polypropylene bottles following World Health Organization guidelines, the bottles released up to 16 million microplastic particles per liter of water heated to 70°C. Water heated to 95°C produced up to 55 million particles per liter. The researchers estimated the average bottle-fed infant consumes about 1.6 million polypropylene microplastic particles per day.9Trinity College Dublin. Bottle-Fed Babies May Consume Millions of Microplastic Particles, Our Research Suggests
A 2024 review found that irregular microplastic particles from polypropylene baby bottles induced oxidative stress in human intestinal cells, and separate research showed microplastic concentrations in infant feces roughly ten times higher than in adult samples.10National Library of Medicine. Microplastics Review Article
The exposure numbers are the strong part of the science. The harm side is thinner. The Trinity College researchers themselves acknowledged the full health implications aren’t yet understood. Consumer Reports noted in 2024 that “there is nothing to suggest that the bottles singled out by recent class-action lawsuits are particularly problematic compared with other plastic bottles.”11Consumer Reports. Popular Baby Bottles With No Detected BPA, Lead, or Phthalates That gap between documented exposure and proven harm was what the court seized on.
Where Regulators Stand
The FDA has not set specific rules for microplastics in food-contact materials like baby bottles. As of mid-2024, the agency stated there is “no scientific evidence” that the levels of microplastics detected in foods or beverages pose a risk to human health, and it cited a lack of standardized definitions and testing procedures as barriers to regulatory action.12U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Microplastics and Nanoplastics in Foods
The agency has moved on related chemicals before. It withdrew authorization for BPA-based polycarbonate resins in baby bottles and sippy cups in 2012, and did the same for BPA-based coatings on infant formula packaging in 2013. But the FDA framed both actions as recognizing the industry’s voluntary abandonment of those materials, not as safety determinations.13U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Bisphenol A (BPA) Use in Food Contact Application With no FDA finding on microplastics specifically, the plaintiffs had a harder time arguing Handi-Craft should have known to disclose an established hazard.
Can the Case Come Back?
Technically, yes. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice leaves the door open. But the same problems that sank this complaint would sink a rerun: a plaintiff would need to plead a specific microplastic exposure level that qualifies as unreasonably unsafe for infants, tie that level to what Dr. Brown’s products actually release, and show that Handi-Craft knew about that specific hazard when it marketed the products. The Philips Avent ruling shows a differently drafted complaint can survive dismissal, but even that case ended without a merits ruling. For now, the Dr. Brown’s suit is over, and there has been no finding that the bottles are unsafe or that Handi-Craft misled anyone. There has also been no finding that they are safe. The court decided only that this particular complaint did not state a legal claim.