REESE RICHMAN LLP Michael R.

Reese 875 Sixth Avenue, 18th Floor New York, New York 10001 Telephone: (212) 579-4625 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 Email: michael@reeserichman.com -andWHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS LLC Deborah Clark-Weintraub 1540 Broadway, 37th Floor New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 447-7070 Facsimile: (212) 447-7077 Email: dweintraub@wdklaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN HOWARD PETLACK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. SC JOHNSON & SON, INC., DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendant. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECEPTIVE SALES PRACTICES; UNJUST ENRICHMENT Case No.: _________________ CLASS ACTION

Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 1 of 12 Document 1

Plaintiff Howard Petlack (Plaintiff), by and through his counsel, alleges the following based upon his own personal knowledge and the investigation of his counsel. Plaintiff believes that substantial evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set forth herein after a reasonable opportunity for discovery. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a proposed class action against SC Johnson & Son, Inc. (SC Johnson or

Defendant) for misleading consumers about the environmental safety of its leading household cleaning product Windex. 2. Looking to profit off the growing environmental green movement, starting in

January, 2008 and continuing to the present (the Class Period), SC Johnson has prominently placed a deceptive seal of approval label on the front of its Windex product as follows:

3.

Additionally, on the reverse side of the label that is read through the back of the

Windex packaging it states that Greenlist is a rating system that promotes the use of environmentally responsible ingredients. 4. By making these representations on Windex packaging, SC Johnson conveys to

Plaintiff and other consumers that Windex has been subjected to a neutral, third partys testing regime that had determined that Windex is environmentally friendly. 5. Unfortunately for consumers, these representations by SC Johnson are false.

Based upon counsels investigation, the truth is that the Greenlist seal of approval is not the

Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 2 of 12 Document 1

product of a neutral, third party but instead the work of Defendant SC Johnson itself. Greenlist is not a designation bestowed by a non-profit environmental group, or even a neutral third-party, but instead is the creation of SC Johnson itself. In other words, the Greenlist seal of approval is nothing more than SC Johnson touting its own product. 6. Additionally, the ingredients that constitute Windex are not environmentally

sound, but rather pose a real risk. Despite the statement that Windex contains Greenlist ingredients, Defendant has not changed the ingredients of Windex to remove environmentally harmful chemicals. Namely, one of the key ingredients of Windex ethyl glycol n-hexyl ether poses serious danger, including death, if ingested by wildlife and small children. Moreover, because the taste of ethyl gycol n-hexyl ether is sweet, the risk of it being ingested by wildlife (or, again, small children) is multiplied. 7. The type of deception engaged in by Defendant here is becoming so rampant that

the term Greenwash has been coined to describe this type of conduct. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenwashing (Greenwash is a term used to describe the perception of consumers that they are being misled by a company regarding the environmental practices of the company or the environmental benefits of a product or service.). 8. Plaintiff brings this suit to now end Defendants deceptive practice and to recover

the ill-gotten gains obtained by Defendant through this deception. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. This Court has jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted herein pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1332(d), because the aggregate claims of the Class exceed the sum or value of $5,000,000.00, and there is diversity of citizenship between plaintiff, who, as alleged below, is a citizen of Florida, and Defendant, which, as alleged below, is a citizen of Wisconsin.

2 Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 3 of 12 Document 1

10.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(1) and (2).

Substantial acts in furtherance of the alleged improper conduct, including the creation of the deceptive Greenlist label and the dissemination of false information regarding Windex, in particular, that Windex is an environmentally friendly product, occurred within this District. Defendant is headquartered within this District, with its main offices in Racine, Wisconsin. PARTIES 11. Plaintiff Howard Petlack (Plaintiff) is a resident of Boynton Beach, Florida.

Plaintiff purchased Defendants Windex product during the Class Period based upon the representations that Windex was environmentally friendly and has the Greenlist seal of approval. Plaintiff relied upon these misrepresentations in making his decision to purchase Windex. Plaintiff suffered injury in that he would not have bought the Greenlist-labeled Windex had he known the truth that Greenlist was the creation of SC Johnson, and not a neutral party, and that Windex was not environmentally friendly. 12. Defendant SC Johnson is a citizen of Racine County, Wisconsin. Defendant SC

Johnson describes itself as one of the world's leading manufacturers of household cleaning products and products for home storage, air care, personal care and insect control. In 2007, Defendant had more than $7.5 billion in sales. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS 13. In recent years, consumers have become significantly more aware and sensitive to

their impact on the environment through the products they purchase and use. As a result, a movement has developed demanding consumer products that are environmentally sound, i.e. that do not harm the environment through the products ingredients, manufacture, use or disposal. The term Green is commonly used to describe these products, and the environmental movement that led to them. 3 Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 4 of 12 Document 1

14.

A number of new companies, such as SimpleGreen and Seventh Generation, have

started to provide Green products to consumers in recent years. Because of the high demand for these products, Green products often command a premium price while simultaneously taking away market share from products that serve similar functions but are not Green. 15. These new Green companies and products pose a threat to older established

companies like Defendant that produce the same type of, but non-Green, product. 16. Defendant SC Johnson is one of the oldest manufacturers of household cleaning

products in the United States. In 2007, Defendant SC Johnson had over $7.5 billion in sales. 17. Windex is one of Defendants leading household cleaning products. Windex is

advertised as a multi-purpose cleaner that specializes in cleaning glass and other reflective and shiny surfaces. 18. In recent years, Windex has faced stiff competition from a number of Green products

that claim to perform the same function as Windex, but do so in an environmentally friendly fashion. These products include brands made by SimpleGreen and Seventh Generation. 19. Starting in 2005, faced with this competition, Windex began to lose market share to

these and other eco-friendly cleaners. See http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is _/ai_n27230492. Then in early January 2008, the threat to SC Johnson and its Windex brand multiplied when its major competitor Clorox, Co. of Oakland, California announced that it was launching a line of Green Works cleaning products that had received a seal of approval from the Sierra Club. 20. In response to these market threats, and to garner a corner of the Green market for

itself, on January 16, 2008, Defendant SC Johnson began marketing and selling Windex in packaging that prominently displayed the Greenlist label on the front to represent that the product is environmentally sound: 4 Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 5 of 12 Document 1

21.

The use of the word Greenlist is also meant to convey that the product has

received the approval of a non-profit environmental group or other neutral third party. In fact, several environmental groups use the term Greenlist to describe environmentally sound products, programs or people. See e.g. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/emeraldcity/ 2007/10/greenlist-cali-.html (Los Angeles Times column Emerald City She Follows the Road to Green Living that posts a Greenlist of companies that have environmentally sound practices); http://www.greenlivingonline.com/tag/Green_List/ (use of term Greenlist by the magazine GreenLiving to commemorate people who have dedicated their lives to protecting the environment). 22. Unfortunately for consumers, however, the Greenlist designation used by SC

Johnson to describe Windex has not been conferred by a non-profit environmental group or neutral third party as is conveyed by the label. Instead, it is merely the creation of Defendant. 23. Furthermore, despite the representation on its label that Windex contains

environmentally friendly Greenlist ingredients, Defendants has, in fact, not changed the ingredients of Windex to remove environmentally harmful ingredients. Namely, one of the key ingredients of Windex is ethyl glycol n-hexyl ether. This chemical poses serious danger, including death, if ingested by wildlife and small children. Moreover, because the taste of ethyl gycol n-hexyl ether is sweet, the risk of it being ingested by wildlife and small children is multiplied.

5 Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 6 of 12 Document 1

24.

In other words, Windex is not environmentally responsible or sound as the

Greenlist labeling leads one to believe.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS 25. Plaintiff brings this action as a nationwide class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all persons who purchased any Windex product bearing the Greenlist label during the period January 16, 2008 to present (the "Class"). Excluded from the Class are officers and directors of the Defendant, members of the immediate families of the officers and directors of the Defendant, and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity in which they have or have had a controlling interest. 26. At this time, Plaintiff does not know the exact number of Class members;

however, given the immense sales volume of Windex, Plaintiff believes that Class members are so numerous that joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable. 27. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact

involved in this case. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class which predominate over questions which may affect individual Class members include: (a) Whether Defendant labeled, marketed, advertised and/or sold its Windex

products to Plaintiff and those similarly situated using false, misleading and/or deceptive statements or representations, including statements or representations concerning the environmental soundness of Windex; (b) Whether Defendant misrepresented material facts in connection with the

sales of its Windex products; (c) Whether Defendant participated in and pursued the common course of

conduct complained of herein; 6 Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 7 of 12 Document 1

(d)

Whether Defendants labeling, marketing, advertising and/or selling of its

Windex products with a Greenlist label constitutes an unfair or deceptive consumer sales practice; and (e) 28. Whether Defendant was unjustly enriched.

Plaintiffs claims are typical of those of the Class because Plaintiff, like all

members of the Class, purchased Windex bearing the Greenlist label in a typical consumer setting and sustained damages from Defendant's wrongful conduct. 29. Plaintiff will adequately protect the interests of the Class and has retained counsel

who are experienced in litigating complex class actions. Plaintiff has no interests that conflict with those of the Class. 30. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy. 31. The prerequisites to maintaining a class action for injunctive or equitable relief

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) are met as Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class thereby making appropriate final injunctive or equitable relief with respect to the Class as a whole. 32. The prosecution of separate actions by members of the Class would create a risk

of establishing inconsistent rulings and/or incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant. For example, one court might enjoin Defendant from performing the challenged acts, whereas another might not. Additionally, individual actions may be dispositive of the interests of the Class, although certain Class members are not parties to such actions. 33. Defendants conduct is generally applicable to the Class as a whole and Plaintiff

seeks, inter alia, equitable remedies with respect to the Class as a whole. As such, Defendants

7 Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 8 of 12 Document 1

systematic policies and practices make declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole appropriate.

COUNT I VIOLATION OF THE DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT, WIS. STAT. 100.18(1) 34. herein. 35. Defendants Greenlist label constitutes false, deceptive and misleading Plaintiff incorporates and realleges the paragraphs above as if fully set forth

advertising in violation of Wisconsins Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). 36. As set forth above, the Greenlist label is false, deceptive and misleading because

it causes consumers to believe that Defendants products are environmentally safer than the nonGreenlist label versions of these products and that products carrying the Greenlist label have been independently tested and approved as such. In fact, however, as described above, Greenlist is nothing more than a marketing program designed by Defendant to increase sales of its products in this environmentally conscious time. Products bearing the Greenlist label have not been independently tested and have not been reformulated to be environmentally friendly. To the contrary, products bearing the Greenlist label contain the same toxic chemicals harmful to the environment and animals as are present in Defendants products without the Greenlist label. 37. Defendant designed the false, misleading and deceptive Greenlist label with intent

to sell, distribute and increase the consumption of its products bearing the Greenlist label including Windex. 38. Defendants violation of the DTPA caused Plaintiff and Class members to suffer

pecuniary loss. Specifically, Defendants false, deceptive and misleading Greenlist label caused 8 Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 9 of 12 Document 1

consumers to purchase Defendants products believing they were environmentally friendly when, in fact, they were not. 39. Because Defendants Greenlist marketing program was devised, implemented and

directed from Defendants headquarters in Racine, Wisconsin, the DTPA applies to a class of purchasers of Defendants products bearing the Greenlist label, both within and outside of Wisconsin, who have been harmed as a result. Moreover, Wisconsin has a substantial interest in preventing false, deceptive and misleading practices within the State which may have an effect both in Wisconsin and throughout the rest of the country. COUNT II UNJUST ENRICHMENT 40. 41. Plaintiff incorporates and realleges the paragraphs above as if fully set out herein. Plaintiff and Class members conferred a benefit on Defendant when they

purchased products carrying the false, deceptive and misleading Greenlist label. 42. Defendant appreciated and had knowledge of the benefit conferred by Plaintiff

and Class members. 43. Defendants acceptance and retention of the benefit conferred by Plaintiff and

Class members would be inequitable under the circumstances. 44. Accordingly, equity and good conscience demand that Defendant should return

the benefit conferred by Plaintiff and Class members.

9 Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 10 of 12 Document 1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows: A. Declaring this action to be a proper class action pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23 of a class

of all persons who purchased Windex products bearing the Greenlist label during the Class Period and appointing Plaintiff as representative for the Class and his counsel as Class Counsel; B. Awarding Plaintiff and the members of the Class compensatory damages in an

amount in excess of $5,000,000.00 and all monetary relief referenced in this Complaint; C. Ordering Defendant to pay restitution to Plaintiff and members of the Class an

amount that is the equivalent of the amount acquired by means of any unfair, deceptive, fraudulent, unconscionable, or negligent act as referenced in this Complaint; D. Ordering Defendant to disgorge any ill-gotten benefits received from Plaintiff and

members of the Class as a result of Defendants false, deceptive or misleading labeling, marketing and advertising of its Windex Greenlist labeled products; E. F. G. Awarding reasonable costs and attorneys' fees; Awarding applicable pre-judgment or post-judgment interest; and Awarding such equitable/injunctive or other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

10 Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 11 of 12 Document 1

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury. September 29, 2008 REESE RICHMAN LLP /s/ Michael R. Reese Michael R. Reese 875 Sixth Avenue, 18th Floor New York, New York 10001 Telephone: (212) 579-4625 Facsimile: (212) 253-4272 - and WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC Deborah Clark-Weintraub 1540 Broadway, 37th Floor New York, New York 10036 Telephone: (212) 447-7070 Facsimile: (212) 447-7077 Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

11 Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 12 of 12 Document 1

Case 2:08-cv-00820-CNC Filed 09/30/08 Page 1 of 1 Document 1-2