By: Catherine Hing and Cassandra Wills

At a glance

• Omnipresent exposure across multiple industries: Microplastics emanate from manufacturing, construction, automotive, textile, cosmetic and other sectors, with scientific studies confirming their presence in the human body and organs, potentially linking them to respiratory disorders, neurological symptoms and other health issues.
• Early litigation has focused on misleading advertising rather than injury, though insurers should not interpret this as an absence of future risk.
• Policy implications require proactive review: Standard pollution exclusions may be tested as microplastics blur traditional coverage lines, while accelerating government regulation signals increased litigation risk requiring insurers to assess exposures across their entire portfolios.

Microplastics: Why we should be concerned

Microplastics are everywhere in the environment. In the air we breathe, the clothes we wear, domestic and cosmetic products we all use, in soils supporting the world’s food supply, oceans, rivers, roads from tyres caused by friction when driving and artificial sporting grounds. Microplastics emanate from multiple industries including manufacturing / packaging, building and construction, automotive / transport, textiles, cosmetics, household, leisure sports, agriculture and electronics.

Microplastics are solid plastic particles between 1µm and 5mm in size. Particles smaller than 1µm are referred to as Nanoplastics. Microplastics do not dissolve and do not break down. Their placement in, and impact on the environment will last for many future generations.

Humans can ingest Microplastic particles in a number of ways. Airborne microplastics particles can be inhaled, thereby entering the human body via the respiratory system. Microplastic particles in food and water can be digested. Cosmetic use or wearing fabrics contaminated with Microplastics can be absorbed through the skin.

Scientific studies have confirmed the presence of Microplastic particles in human blood, lungs, placenta, breast milk, digestive systems, in newborn meconium and in the brain. Traces of Microplastics have also been detected in animals.

Early studies suggest the presence of Microplastic particles in the human body can potentially lead to a range of health issues, including respiratory disorders (such as lung cancer, asthma and hypersensitivity pneumonitis), neurological symptoms (such as fatigue and dizziness), inflammatory bowel disease and gut microbiota disturbances (link). A 2024 study from the University of California San Francisco reviewed 3,000 studies which implicated microplastics in infertility (male and female), colon cancer and poor lung function. Further research is required to investigate the potential health consequences.

Like the early days of tobacco, asbestos, silica dust and PFAS litigation, the current landscape for Microplastics litigation is limited by evidentiary obstacles linking exposure to particular sources of Microplastics to health consequences. There are presently no methods for identifying the source of Microplastics. Any prospective Claimant seeking recompense for poor health consequences of Microplastics exposure would need to identify the prospective Defendant and obtain clear scientific evidence establishing a causal link between their health ailment and Microplastic exposure.

Early Microplastics litigation in the US has focused on alleged misleading advertising by producers of plastic products, rather than on allegations of physical injury caused by Microplastics exposure. Early cases relating to products widely used highlight the difficulties faced by Claimants in Microplastics litigation.

US Microplastics Litigation

Baby Bottles

In February 2025, the US District Court (Northern District of California) partially dismissed a class action complaint against Phillips Avent for falsely advertising its baby bottles and Sippy cups (made of polypropylene) as BPA Free.

The Plaintiffs alleged that when bottles are heated, (which is necessary for sterilisation and to prepare baby formula) Microplastics from the bottles are released into the liquid consumed. The Plaintiffs alleged that labelling products as “BPA Free” misled consumers into thinking the products were safe and free of plastics, in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

The Court dismissed the claim that labelling as “BPA Free” was misleading because the “BPA Free” label only promised the products were free of BPA, not all plastics. The Court allowed the Plaintiffs to proceed on the allegation that Philips failed to warn consumers about the potential risks of microplastics exposure. The litigation remains ongoing.

Ziplock bags

In April 2025, US Public Interest Law firm, Clarkson acting for the lead Plaintiff, Cheslow, filed a class action lawsuit against SC Johnson & Son (Cheslow v S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc), the manufacturer of Ziplock bags, which are made of polyethylene and polypropylene plastics.

Cheslow alleges SC Johnson & Son made false and misleading statements in contravention of California’s UCL. The contraventions are alleged to have occurred when it advertised Ziplock bags as “microwave safe” and “freezer safe”, which allegedly conveys to consumers that microwaving and freezing Ziplock bags is safe and without any risk to consumers. Cheslow alleges these statements are misrepresentations because microwaving and freezing Ziplock bags leaches microplastics into food.

The Class Action Complaint alleges heating the Ziplock bags in the microwave in polyethylene can release “4.22 million microplastic and 2.11 billion nanoplastic particles from only 1 square cm of plastic within 3 minutes of microwave heating”. Freezing further amplifies the release of microplastics.

SC Johnson & Son filed a dismissal Motion, which is yet to be finally determined.

Bottled water cases – Evian and Fiji Water

On 11 May 2024, the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Daly v Danone Waters of America, the manufacturer of Evian bottled water. The Plaintiffs alleged that Danone’s description of Evian spring water as “natural” violated consumer protection laws and constituted consumer fraud because the plastic bottle leached microplastics into the water.

On Danone’s Motion, the proceedings were dismissed. Bottled spring water is regulated under Federal Law, under which, if the water came from a spring, it could be labelled as “natural”. There was no requirement in the regulation to ensure that the water did not contain any microplastics.

On May 7, 2025, the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed (with prejudice, meaning the Plaintiff cannot re-file) class action proceedings Daly v. The Wonderful Company LLC (No. 24 C 1267 (N.D. Ill.)). (A different Daly to the Plaintiff who sued Danone). Michael Daly alleged Fiji Water’s “Natural Artesian Water” labelling was deceptive because microplastics were present in the water and the water was not, as the label stated, “natural”.

On the Defendant’s Motion, the Court dismissed the action because the Plaintiffs had no evidence that microplastics were present in Fiji’s bottled water. Daly had (unsuccessfully) tried to rely on other, third party testing that did not involve actual testing of Fiji’s bottled water. He also tried to point to future testing that was yet to occur on Fiji’s bottled water. The Court said this failed to meet the “plausibility standard”. In other words, absent any evidence of testing on Fiji’s products, there could be no reasonable inference drawn that the Fiji water bottles contained Microplastics.

Government Responses

Governments are starting to act to try to minimise Microplastic emanation into the environment. The European Union has introduced restrictions on intentionally added microplastics in cosmetics and industrial applications. California implemented a statewide ban on microbeads in “rinse-off” personal care products (eg: shampoo, conditioner, face wash, toothpaste etc) with further bans for “leave-in” personal products coming into effect in 2029. All Australian states and territories have banned single use plastics.

It is likely further regulatory measures will be required in the future as Microplastic science and awareness evolves.

In Australia, responsibility for regulation of Microplastics is shared across the Commonwealth, States and Territories. The Commonwealth Department of Climate Change, Energy the Environment and Water (DCCEEW) has policy responsibility and is charged with implementing the National Plastics Plan 2021, which includes support of industry initiatives to voluntarily phase out microbeads in personal care products and phase-in of microfibre filters in washing machines sold in Australia by 2030 (National Plastics Plan 2021, p9).

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) have responsibility for addressing microplastics in cosmetics and consumer goods, and related product safety or environmental claims respectively. Finally, State and Territory environmental protection authorities regulate pollution control and waste management, including Microplastic discharges into waterways. These agencies will need to work together to develop an integrated framework to reduce the generation of Microplastics, control pollution, and support Australia’s transition to a circular and sustainable plastics economy.

Potential Insurance Implications

Microplastics will potentially challenge conventional underwriting models because they are an omnipresent environmental phenomenon. Underwriters might enquire whether their Insureds’ operations generate or disseminate Microplastics.

The evidentiary difficulties identified above should not be construed as an absence of potential exposure and risk. We expect the risk of claims to increase and retroactive coverage questions will arise as the science develops, litigation funding expands, Governments look to regulate the production of / release of Microplastics into the environment and Plaintiff lawyers conceive of potential claims against Microplastic producers.

In the future, product liability, general liability and environmental policies could all be tested by claims alleging contamination of land or waterways, damage to ecosystems, or bodily injury. Insurers will need to turn their minds to whether standard pollution exclusions apply. Difficult factual questions around contamination (when, how and who) will require analysis. Insurers may, in future be tasked with having to scrutinise policy wordings, triggers and historical exposures across portfolios that were never formulated with Microplastics in mind.

Key Contacts & Updates

Stay tuned for our future articles where we will take a deeper dive into Microplastics issues. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to reach out to our Microplastics team.

Alternatively, please complete the form below to subscribe to our Microplastics Risks updates.