Rubbermaid is a trusted name in American homes, known for kitchen containers labeled microwave and freezer-safe. But a new class-action lawsuit alleges the company’s parent, Newell Brands, knowingly sold products that release toxic microplastics into food.
The charges raise serious health concerns, especially for children, and expose a broader industry pattern of corporate secrecy and misrepresentation. What happens when convenience conceals contamination?
Lawsuit Officially Filed
On April 28, 2025, plaintiffs Marija Andesilic and Passion Lowe filed a class-action lawsuit against Newell Brands in California federal court. The complaint accuses the company of deceptive marketing, claiming its Rubbermaid TakeAlongs containers—labeled “microwave safe” and “freezer safe”—actually release dangerous levels of microplastics when used as directed.
Health at Risk, Millions Affected
The 59-page filing describes a sweeping consumer deception campaign. It alleges that Newell “duped consumers nationwide out of millions of dollars” while jeopardizing their health. Families with children were a key target of the marketing—despite research showing that kids are the most vulnerable to microplastic exposure.
The Science Behind the Lawsuit
At the heart of the scandal is polypropylene, the plastic used in Rubbermaid’s TakeAlongs. When heated or frozen, polypropylene releases alarming amounts of plastic particles. In just three minutes of microwave use, one square centimeter of this plastic can shed over 4.2 million microplastic particles and more than 2 billion nanoplastics directly into your food.
What Happens When You Heat Plastic
Polypropylene doesn’t melt when microwaved, but it breaks down. This breakdown releases microscopic plastic fragments that migrate into the food it contains. These particles are small enough to evade detection yet large enough to cause cellular damage, setting off a hidden cascade of exposure every time food is reheated or stored in these containers.
“Safe” Isn’t What You Think
The term “microwave safe” gives a false sense of security. It simply means the container won’t melt, not that it won’t leach chemicals or microplastics. This legal loophole allows companies like Newell Brands to technically follow FDA labeling guidelines while ignoring the toxic fallout their products can cause in real-world use.
Marketing vs. Reality
Rubbermaid’s packaging tells consumers their products are safe for heat and cold. But internal studies and external research show polypropylene becomes brittle when frozen and unstable when heated. The lawsuit accuses Newell Brands of knowingly pushing containers that are “fundamentally unfit” for their advertised use, especially for storing and reheating food.
How This Targets Families
The containers in question are sold specifically for “on-the-go meals” and family use. Think school lunches, baby snacks, leftovers from dinner. Rubbermaid’s core marketing audience includes households with children, those most vulnerable to the health effects of microplastic ingestion. That targeting strategy is now at the center of legal and public backlash.
Children Are at Higher Risk
Children are far more sensitive to environmental toxins than adults. Studies show infants ingest up to 10 times more microplastics daily, often from heated plastic products like feeding bottles or food containers. Just heating a baby bottle to 158°F (70°C) can release 16 million plastic particles per liter, yet these products are often sold as “safe.”
Health Consequences in Developing Bodies
Microplastic exposure in children has been linked to developmental delays, DNA damage, and increased risks for conditions like ADHD and autism. Researchers fear that long-term exposure during early life stages could interfere with brain development and immune function, creating consequences that unfold over years, not weeks.
The Invisible Accumulation Problem
Microplastics don’t simply pass through the human body. Studies show they can enter the bloodstream, cross into organs, and even lodge in the brain. The average person already ingests up to 52,000 plastic particles per year, 120,000 when accounting for airborne exposure. Over time, that toxic load adds up inside the body.
Microplastics and the Brain
In a breakthrough study, researchers found that plastic particles carried by immune cells can block capillaries in the brain. This restricts blood flow, triggering symptoms linked to anxiety and depression. Worse, microplastics are now known to cross the blood-brain barrier, opening the door to lasting neurological damage, especially in children.
The Environmental Chain Reaction
Rubbermaid’s plastic containers don’t just harm people, they pollute the planet. Microplastics have been found in soil, oceans, and even the air. One study found that they reduce land plant photosynthesis by 12% and marine algae by 7%, threatening the base of the global food chain and risking massive crop losses.
A Larger Legal Wave Begins
Just three days before the Rubbermaid suit, a nearly identical lawsuit was filed against S.C. Johnson for Ziploc containers. Both are being handled by Clarkson Law Firm P.C., signaling the beginning of a broader litigation movement against plastic food storage giants. Many experts believe this is just the start.
A Familiar Pattern of Corporate Secrecy
Rubbermaid isn’t the first brand to face this kind of scrutiny. The allegations mirror past scandals like DuPont’s hidden knowledge of PFOA toxicity. These cases often follow the same trajectory: internal warnings ignored, public harm, and eventual legal reckoning. The troubling consistency suggests this may be a systemic industry flaw, not a one-off failure.
Plastic Lobby’s Response
The Plastics Industry Association, led by CEO Matt Seaholm, argued that plastic offers “unmatched safety and efficiency.” Yet this talking point sidesteps the central allegation: that consumers were misled about microplastic release from supposedly “safe” products. The defense may play well in boardrooms, but not in courtrooms.
Legal Experts Weigh In
A June 2025 legal analysis described these cases as a “new frontier” in consumer protection litigation. Both the Rubbermaid and Ziploc cases are pursuing class certification, aiming to represent millions of Americans. Experts say they challenge the very definition of product safety, and the legal obligations behind those claims.
Current Legal Status
As of June 25, 2025, there have been no major public developments in the Rubbermaid lawsuit. The case is still in its early stages. No rulings, motions, or settlement talks have been disclosed. Newell Brands, the parent company behind Rubbermaid, has not issued any public comment in response to the claims.
Behind Closed Doors
Although there’s no court drama yet, legal experts believe preliminary motions and discovery are already underway. One likely next step: Newell may try to dismiss the case using federal preemption laws. If the case survives that phase, it could move toward class certification and trial.
Meanwhile, Business as Usual
While the lawsuit plays out, Newell Brands has been focusing on its corporate turnaround. At a June investor conference, CEO Chris Peterson touted margin gains and brand consolidation, without mentioning the microplastic controversy. The disconnect between financial optimism and legal exposure hasn’t gone unnoticed.
What the Rubbermaid Case Means for All of Us
The lawsuit against Rubbermaid represents more than a corporate scandal. It’s a warning shot about what happens when safety claims mask long-term harm. As microplastic contamination gains legal and scientific attention, consumers must push for accountability. The future of food safety depends on transparency, and on companies finally putting public health ahead of convenience and profit.