The Non-Financial Ledger: What You Actually Paid For

Think about the last time you pulled a Ziploc bag out of a kitchen drawer, filled it with last night’s leftovers, and put it in the microwave. Maybe it was soup. Maybe it was pasta for your kid. You probably glanced at that little phrase on the box — “Microwave Safe” — and felt good about it. That phrase was doing a job. It was doing the job of trust.

That trust is exactly what this lawsuit says S.C. Johnson sold you, and then took away before you ever knew you had paid for it.

The people named in this class — tens of thousands of them, by the complaint’s own estimate — are ordinary families. People who pack school lunches. People who work doubles and reheat the dinner they didn’t have time to eat. People who are specifically, carefully trying to make healthy choices for their children by buying name-brand products that tell them, right there on the front of the box, that what they are doing is safe.

According to the lawsuit, S.C. Johnson knew that microwaving its polyethylene and polypropylene bags dramatically increases the amount of plastic particles shed into food. It knew that freezing those same bags makes the plastic brittle, more fragile, and even more likely to break down. It knew that combining the two — freezing food, then reheating in the same bag, exactly what it advertised on its own packaging — is worse still. And it chose, deliberately, to say nothing.

What does that silence cost? The science cited in this complaint is specific and it is frightening. Microplastics have been found in the placentas of unborn children. They have been found accumulating in brain tissue at levels 7 to 30 times what is found in the liver. The amount of microplastic in human brains collected in 2024 was roughly 50 percent higher than in brains collected in 2016. Researchers studying these particles note a correlation between their presence and neurodegenerative disease. A 2024 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that patients with microplastics detected in their arterial plaque had a statistically higher risk of heart attack, stroke, or death.

None of this is theoretical. These are studies on human tissue. These are conditions — heart disease, dementia, colon cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, reproductive harm — that are rising in the population at the same time microplastic contamination in the human body is rising. The complaint notes that ingestion is the primary pathway microplastics use to enter the human body, and that the acidic environment of the stomach allows them to leach additional toxic additives into surrounding tissue.

The people on the other end of this are not investors or market analysts. They are parents standing in a Costco aisle, buying a 38-count box of gallon freezer bags because they trust the brand. They are people managing tight grocery budgets who paid a price premium, according to the lawsuit, for the specific promise that these products were fit for their intended use. That promise was a lie. The premium they paid was a transfer of money from people who could not afford to be deceived to a corporation that could afford to tell the truth and chose not to.

There is no line item on a settlement check for the years someone spent microwaving leftovers in these bags. There is no column in a balance sheet for the accumulation of plastic in a child’s developing body. The lawsuit can try to get money back. It cannot get back what was already ingested.

Legal Receipts: What the Lawsuit Actually Says

Every quote below is pulled verbatim from Case No. 3:25-cv-03655, the class action complaint filed April 25, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. No paraphrasing. No editorial invention.

“Defendant affirmatively markets its Ziploc bags and containers as ‘Microwave Safe’ and suitable for ‘Freezer’ use, creating the reasonable impression that they are fit for use in the microwave and freezer. In reality, these Products are made from polyethylene and polypropylene — materials that scientific and medical evidence shows release microplastics when microwaved and frozen — making them fundamentally unfit for microwave and freezer use.” — Complaint ¶2, Case 3:25-cv-03655

• This is the lawsuit’s foundational claim. It establishes that the “Microwave Safe” label is a direct affirmative misrepresentation: the product is, according to the complaint, fundamentally unfit for the exact use it markets itself for.
• The word “fundamentally” is doing heavy legal work here. The complaint argues this deficiency strikes at the core of the product’s purpose, making the label deceptive under California consumer protection law.

“Some products release as many as 4.22 million microplastic and 2.11 billion nanoplastic particles from only one square centimeter of plastic area within three minutes of microwave heating.” — Complaint ¶7, Case 3:25-cv-03655

• This figure comes from peer-reviewed research cited in the complaint. It quantifies the contamination in a way that is impossible to dismiss as speculative: a single square centimeter of plastic in three minutes of heating releases particles in the billions.
• For context, a standard gallon Ziploc bag has hundreds of square centimeters of surface area in contact with food. Multiplied out, the exposure per use is staggering, even before accounting for repeated use across weeks and months.

“Defendant knew, and continues to know, that the Products pose the Material Risk of microplastic leaching into consumers’ food when microwaved and/or frozen during ordinary use. Despite this knowledge, Defendant intentionally marketed, advertised and labeled the Products as ‘Microwave Safe’ and suitable for ‘Freezer’ use to deceive reasonable consumers.” — Complaint ¶77, Case 3:25-cv-03655

• This is the “scienter” allegation: the complaint is not arguing S.C. Johnson made a careless mistake. It argues the company knew the truth and chose deception because disclosure would have hurt sales.
• The complaint supports this by noting S.C. Johnson had exclusive control over its own product testing and manufacturing, placing it in a position of superior knowledge relative to every consumer who bought the product.

“Defendant instructs consumers to vent Ziploc bags by ‘1 inch on one side before heating’ and warns that ‘the bag itself and its contents may be hot’ while cautioning not to ‘overheat the contents as the bag may melt.’ Despite these instructions, Defendant omits the material fact that the Products — made of polyethylene and polypropylene — release microplastics in significant quantities when microwaved.” — Complaint ¶32, Case 3:25-cv-03655

• This is arguably the most damning passage in the complaint. S.C. Johnson’s own packaging includes step-by-step microwave instructions, meaning the company cannot claim it did not anticipate or intend consumers to heat food in these bags.
• The presence of specific microwave-use instructions on the product demonstrates the company had a direct opportunity to add a microplastic warning. It chose not to. The complaint calls this a deliberate omission, not an oversight.

“Defendant knew that disclosing the Material Risk of microplastic leaching would likely deter consumers from purchasing the Products.” — Complaint ¶47(d), Case 3:25-cv-03655

• The complaint directly states the motive: profit protection. S.C. Johnson allegedly calculated that telling consumers the truth would cost it sales, so it opted for silence and misrepresentation instead.
• A study cited in the complaint tested consumers’ willingness to pay for products disclosing microplastic risks versus those that did not. The results confirmed consumers place significant value on such disclosures, reinforcing that this omission was financially strategic.

“Consumers are unknowingly consuming and exposing themselves and their families to leached microplastics, which are linked to the risk of ‘irreversible changes in the reproductive axis and central nervous system,’ among other severe health risks.” — Complaint ¶27, Case 3:25-cv-03655, citing peer-reviewed research

Societal Impact: Who Pays the Real Price

Public Health

The health science cited in this complaint is not fringe research. It is published in Nature Medicine, the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA Network Open, and other peer-reviewed outlets. The documented harms attributed to microplastic accumulation include:

• A 2024 New England Journal of Medicine study found patients with microplastics detected in carotid artery plaque had a statistically significant higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or death from any cause compared to patients without detected microplastics.
• A February 2025 Nature Medicine study documented that human brains accumulate microplastics at concentrations 7 to 30 times higher than the liver or kidneys, and that brain samples from dementia patients contained even greater microplastic presence than those from neurologically healthy individuals.
• A September 2024 study published in the Journal of Hazardous Materials found polypropylene microplastics present in every sample of bone marrow tested, confirming deep systemic penetration of plastic particles into the skeleton itself.
• A September 2024 JAMA Network Open study documented microplastics in the olfactory bulb of the human brain, with researchers cautioning that results “should raise concern in the context of increasing prevalence of neurodegenerative diseases.”
• Research published in the journal Cancers links microplastic ingestion to colon cancer, which the complaint notes is rising in incidence among young people, along with other gastrointestinal cancers.
• In vitro experiments using human cells and in vivo mouse studies found microplastics trigger inflammation, oxidative stress, disruption of lipid metabolism, gut microbiota imbalance, and neurotoxicity.
• For people with inflammatory bowel disease, the concentration of microplastics in fecal samples directly correlates with disease severity. Liver damage patients show an 8-fold increase in plastic contamination compared to healthy liver tissue samples.
• Microplastics have been found in blood, saliva, liver, kidneys, and placenta. Nanoplastics, the smallest fraction, are documented to penetrate individual cells and the cell nucleus, raising the prospect of direct intracellular damage.
• The quantity of microplastics in human brain samples collected in 2024 was approximately 50 percent higher than in samples collected in 2016, demonstrating that the accumulation is accelerating, not stabilizing.
• Children are specifically identified as a high-risk population. Scientists cited in the complaint urge governments and industries to make the most significant effort to protect children from microplastic exposure, explicitly including avoiding plastic contact with children’s meals.

“Each instance of exposure to microplastics compounds the risk of long-term harm. The quantity of microplastics in brain samples collected in 2024 was about 50% higher than in brain samples collected in 2016.” — Complaint ¶29, citing peer-reviewed research, Case 3:25-cv-03655

Economic Inequality

This deception lands hardest on the people who have the least leverage to fight back. The economic dynamics embedded in this case are systematic.

• Consumers paid a price premium for Ziploc products specifically because the Ziploc brand name signaled industry-leading safety and reliability. The complaint states that brand recognition “reasonably conveys to consumers that the Products are industry-leading and thus do not pose the Material Risk.” Working-class families who chose name-brand products over store-brand alternatives out of health concern paid more for a product that delivered less.
• Plaintiff Linda Cheslow paid approximately $15 to $20 per box for Ziploc freezer bags at Costco. At those price points, the premium over a generic equivalent represents real money extracted from household budgets based on a false promise.
• Individual class members likely suffered relatively small dollar losses per purchase, which is precisely why corporate misconduct of this type persists. The lawsuit notes that “given the size of individual Class Members’ claims, few, if any, Class Members could afford to or would seek legal redress individually,” meaning the only viable recourse is collective action.
• The class action complaint estimates tens of thousands of purchasers nationwide, meaning the aggregate transfer of money from consumers to S.C. Johnson under false pretenses is substantial, even if individual losses appear modest.
• Low-income households and families without access to health insurance or routine medical monitoring are the least equipped to identify or document health harms from chronic microplastic exposure. The people least able to bear the health consequences are the ones who relied most heavily on affordable, trusted household products to keep their families safe.
• S.C. Johnson, headquartered in Racine, Wisconsin, is a corporation that by the complaint’s own description operates across the United States and California, conducting substantial business and collecting substantial benefits from sales of these products. The financial calculation to suppress a warning was made at the corporate level and borne by ordinary consumers at the household level.

The Cost of a Life: What Silence Is Worth

What Now: What You Can Do About It

S.C. Johnson continues to sell these products with the same labels. The lawsuit is in its opening phase, filed April 25, 2025. Here is what accountability looks like and how you can be part of it.

The Corporate Targets

• S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. — Defendant. Principal place of business: Racine, Wisconsin. Owner, manufacturer, and distributor of the Ziploc product line at issue. All Ziploc product labeling, advertising, and packaging decisions originate from this entity.
• Lead Plaintiff: Linda Cheslow, Santa Rosa, California, representing the California Subclass and the Nationwide Class of all U.S. purchasers of the listed Ziploc products for personal use.
• Plaintiff’s Counsel: Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. — Ryan J. Clarkson (SBN 257074), Bahar Sodaify (SBN 289730), Alan Gudino (SBN 326738), 22525 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265.

Watchlist: Regulatory Bodies

• Federal Trade Commission (FTC): The complaint specifically cites FTC Act Section 5 (15 U.S.C. §45 et seq.) as imposing a statutory obligation on S.C. Johnson to evaluate its marketing claims from the perspective of the reasonable consumer. The FTC has authority over deceptive advertising nationally. Consumer complaints can be filed at reportfraud.ftc.gov.
• U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA): The FDA regulates food contact materials. Polypropylene and polyethylene containers marketed for food use fall within FDA purview. Petitions requesting rulemaking or safety reassessment of microwave-use plastic labeling standards can be filed through FDA’s dockets system.
• California Department of Justice / Office of the Attorney General: California’s Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code §17200) and False Advertising Law (§17500) are the state-level statutes anchoring this complaint. The California AG has independent authority to enforce these statutes beyond private litigation.
• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB): While primarily a financial regulator, the CFPB has been involved in broader consumer deception enforcement frameworks. Documenting price premium deception in consumer product markets falls within public advocacy territories the CFPB monitors.

What You Can Do Right Now

• If you purchased Ziploc Freezer Bags, Slider Freezer Bags, Slider Storage Bags, or Ziploc Containers in California within the past four years, you are a potential California Subclass member. If you purchased them anywhere in the United States within the applicable statute of limitations, you are a potential Nationwide Class member. Contact Clarkson Law Firm directly via the information listed in the complaint to inquire about class membership.
• Stop microwaving food in polyethylene or polypropylene plastic. Use glass, ceramic, or stainless steel for reheating. Transfer food out of plastic before microwaving. This applies to all brands, not just Ziploc — the science implicates the material, not the logo.
• Photograph and retain your product packaging if you purchased any of the named Ziploc products. Document the “Microwave Safe” and “Freezer” labels. This is potential evidence for class membership.
• File a complaint with the FTC at reportfraud.ftc.gov citing S.C. Johnson, the Ziploc brand, and the “Microwave Safe” labeling. Volume of consumer complaints affects regulatory prioritization.
• Share this investigation with your neighbors, family, and community groups — especially parents, school nutrition programs, elderly care providers, and anyone who uses Ziploc products to store or prepare food for vulnerable populations. The people most at risk are the least likely to have encountered this lawsuit.
• Mutual aid and local organizing: Contact local food safety and environmental justice organizations in your area. Advocate for your city or county to formally request FDA or FTC investigation of microwave-safe plastic labeling standards. School board meetings, parent-teacher associations, and community health boards are all legitimate venues to raise awareness of microplastic contamination from food packaging.
• Demand your retailer respond. Costco, Walmart, Target, and any retailer carrying Ziploc products sold these bags to you on the basis of the “Microwave Safe” label. Customer service departments and shareholder advocacy channels at these retailers can be used to demand they audit the claims made on products they carry.