The lawsuit plaintiffs, Allison Johnson and Melissa Tantibanchachai, claim they paid significantly more for SIGG bottles than other alternatives because they “believed SIGG’s representations that their bottles were BPA-free.”
The lawsuit attests that after media reports and government agencies expressed concerns about BPA in 2007, SIGG benefited from the unease by claiming its bottles were BPA-free.
The suit goes on to say that SIGG went so far as to conceal the presence of BPA in its bottles and engaged in “unfair, false, misleading or deceptive acts or practices regarding its marketing and sale of the bottles” in violation of consumer protection laws.
The plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, restitution, and decisions on compensatory damages and punitive damages. The suit does not specify an amount for compensation, but experts agree that the latter two claims could involve a hefty price tag, especially if the case is tried in front of a jury as the plaintiffs have requested.
The opinions expressed by MNN Bloggers and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not reflect the opinions of MNN.com. While we have reviewed their content to make sure it complies with our Terms and Conditions, MNN is not responsible for the accuracy of any of their information.