Bayer CropScience LP Neonicotinoid Product Advertising – Class Action Investigation

Bayer CropScience LP Neonicotinoid Product Advertising – Class Action Investigation

Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP (CSK&D) is investigating a potential class action lawsuit against Bayer CropScience LP for its allegedly deceptive advertising statements regarding certain of its insecticide products marketed and sold under the brands Bayer Advanced™ and Bayer Environmental Science, specifically with respect to its advertisements for Bayer CropScience insecticide products that contain neonicotinoid chemicals and are intended to be used by homeowners to kill, repel or otherwise control insect pests in or on home gardens, lawns, and ornamental trees.

Bayer’s allegedly deceptive advertisements included statements that its neonicotinoid products are environmentally friendly to beneficial insects including honey bees; that neonicotinoids are active ingredients approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), even though the EPA cautions pesticide companies not to characterize any pesticide product as EPA-approved; that identified the active ingredient in some of its neonicotinoid products only by the term “Merit®,” when the active ingredient is the neonicotinoid pesticide, imidacloprid; and that the consumer should think of systemic insecticides like a preventative treatment, much like taking a daily vitamin.

Bayer Cropscience recently agreed to stop its allegedly misleading advertisements and pay a fine to the Massachusetts Attorney General’s office. This agreement reportedly includes Bayer Advanced® All-in-One Rose and Flower Care, Bayer Advanced® 12 Month Tree & Shrub Protect and Feed II, and Bayer Advanced® Season Long Grub Control Plus Turf Revitalizer.

If you have purchased Bayer CropScience LP neonicotinoid products, please contact the lawyers listed below to discuss this potential lawsuit.

(*) Indicates required field: When communicating with us through this site or otherwise in connection with a matter for which we do not already represent you, your communication may not be treated as privileged or confidential, and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and our Firm.

Attorneys for this case:

Benjamin F. Johns