WaterWipes Lawsuit: Microplastics in ‘Plastic-Free’ Wipes

Three pending U.S. lawsuits make up the WaterWipes microplastics lawsuit landscape, and all three turn on the same finding: independent laboratory testing detected microplastics in WaterWipes “Plastic-Free Original Baby Wipes” at levels 387 times higher than those found in a control sample of laboratory-grade isopropyl alcohol.¹ The suits, filed in California, New York, and Washington, D.C., argue that the “plastic-free” label on a product aimed at newborns is false. None has reached settlement or class certification as of mid-2026.

What the Lawsuits Allege

The central claim across all three cases is simple. WaterWipes markets its original baby wipes as containing “just 2 ingredients” (99.9% water and a drop of fruit extract) and prominently labels the product “plastic-free.”² Plaintiffs say testing shows otherwise.

The testing was performed by Parverio Inc., a New York microplastics analysis firm, between November 12 and December 16, 2024. According to the Merlo complaint, Parverio filtered water from the wipe samples through 8-micrometer slits and then stained the captured particles with fluorescent dye to distinguish microplastics from other debris.³ The Toxin Free USA complaint adds that microplastics were found throughout the stack of wipes, not just on the top sheet exposed to packaging.⁴

Plaintiffs argue the “plastic-free” and “world’s purest baby wipes” claims were material to their purchases, and that they paid a premium based on representations the product allegedly did not meet.⁵

The Three Cases

Merlo v. WaterWipes (Northern District of California)

The broadest action is a proposed class action filed by Devery Merlo, a San Jose resident, on June 2, 2025 (Case No. 3:25-cv-04640). Merlo says she bought the wipes through Amazon in May 2020, February 2021, and February 2024, paying extra each time because of the “pure” and “plastic-free” marketing.⁵

The complaint raises five claims:

Violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA)
Violation of the California False Advertising Law
Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law
Breach of express warranty, based on the “plastic-free” label
Unjust enrichment⁵

Merlo seeks to represent a nationwide class of U.S. purchasers within the statute of limitations, along with a California subclass. The complaint asks for compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, injunctive relief forcing accurate marketing, and attorneys’ fees. Merlo sent a pre-suit notice required under the CLRA on April 24, 2025. The complaint says WaterWipes took no corrective action in response.¹

Bregvadze v. WaterWipes (Southern District of New York)

Nina Bregvadze filed a fraud action against WaterWipes (USA), Inc. on March 28, 2025 in the Southern District of New York, under diversity jurisdiction. The case is represented by Kim E. Richman of Richman Law & Policy.⁶

WaterWipes filed a motion to dismiss in August 2025, arguing the plaintiff lacked standing and failed to state a claim. The motion included requests for judicial notice of microplastics-related material from PubMed, the Washington Post, and the FDA, suggesting the defense turns on the broader scientific context around microplastics in everyday products.⁶

Toxin Free USA v. WaterWipes (Washington, D.C.)

The first-filed case came from the nonprofit GMO Free USA, operating as Toxin Free USA, which sued in Washington, D.C. on April 24, 2025 under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act. The nonprofit commissioned the Parverio testing that underlies all three lawsuits. It is also represented by Richman Law & Policy.⁷

Unlike the other two cases, this suit does not seek money damages. It asks the court to order WaterWipes to stop its “plastic-free” advertising and to remove microplastics from the product.⁷

Health Concerns Raised in the Complaints

The complaints go beyond labeling to raise health concerns. The Toxin Free USA complaint cites a 2022 study published in Toxics on microplastic exposure during early development, along with 2024 research detecting microplastics in human placentas, testicles, and blood samples.⁴ The Merlo complaint argues that newborns and young children are more vulnerable because their skin is more permeable, raising potential concerns for digestive, reproductive, immune, and circulatory systems.⁵

These are allegations in pleadings. No court has yet weighed the underlying science.

Where the Cases Stand

As of mid-2026, none of the three lawsuits has produced a ruling on the merits, a certified class, or a settlement.⁸ The New York case was stayed for 90 days in September 2025, with that stay extended in March 2026; the most recent docket activity before Judge Kenneth M. Karas was in June 2026.⁶ The California class action and the D.C. consumer protection suit both remain at early stages. There is no claim form to submit and no payout to register for.

What Can Consumers Do Now?

Because the Merlo complaint seeks to represent a nationwide class of past purchasers, consumers who bought the “Plastic-Free Original Baby Wipes” during the statute-of-limitations period would, if a class is eventually certified, generally be covered automatically unless they opt out. That certification has not happened. Receipts, Amazon order histories, or other proof of purchase would be useful if a claims process is later established.

Prior Scrutiny of WaterWipes Marketing

The microplastics suits are not the first challenge to WaterWipes’ advertising. In August 2022, the National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs ruled on a case brought by Procter & Gamble.⁹ NAD found certain claims supported, including “99.9% purified water” and “world’s purest baby wipes” as a composition claim. But NAD recommended that WaterWipes stop claims that competing wipes “can cause or exacerbate diaper rash,” that WaterWipes was the “#1 wipe against the causes of diaper rash,” and that “95% of healthcare professionals” recommend the product, because the underlying survey included only nurses and excluded pediatricians.¹⁰

WaterWipes said publicly that it agreed to comply with NAD’s recommendations, while noting that it “respectfully disagrees with certain findings related to implied takeaways of some claims.”⁹

A separate 2023 class action alleged that WaterWipes were falsely advertised as “100% Biodegradable,” claiming the wipes do not fully decompose within a reasonable timeframe when thrown in the trash.¹¹ That case involves different claims and is separate from the current microplastics litigation. The current lawsuits also do not involve PFAS, the “forever chemicals” at issue in other baby wipe cases against Kimberly-Clark and Costco; Consumer Reports testing published in June 2026 found no detectable PFAS in any of 18 baby wipe brands it tested, including WaterWipes.¹²

1
ClassAction.org. Merlo v. Water Wipes USA Inc. Complaint
2
ClassAction.org. WaterWipes Lawsuit Claims Plastic-Free Baby Wipes Contain Significant Levels of Microplastics
3
ClassAction.org. Merlo v. WaterWipes USA Inc.
4
Toxin Free USA. Toxin Free USA v. WaterWipes Court-Stamped Complaint
5
AboutLawsuits.com. WaterWipes Lawsuit: Worlds Purest Baby Wipes Contain Microplastics
6
CourtListener. Bregvadze v. WaterWipes USA Inc.
7
Toxin Free USA. Toxin Free USA Sues WaterWipes Alleging Deceptive Marketing of Plastic-Free Original Baby Wipes
8
Top Class Actions. Class Action Says WaterWipes Contain Significant Levels of Microplastics Despite Plastic-Free Claims
9
BBB National Programs. WaterWipes Infant Cleansing Wipes
10
PR Newswire. National Advertising Division Finds Certain WaterWipes Claims for Infant Cleansing Wipes Supported, Recommends Others Be Discontinued
11
ClassAction.org. WaterWipes USA Inc.
12
Consumer Reports. How to Choose Baby Wipes Without Harmful Chemicals