Introduction

A new class action lawsuit filed in California Federal Court claims Celtic Ocean International, LLC’s Celtic Sea Salt products are contaminated with lead and arsenic, in violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California’s unfair competition law, and breach of implied warranties.[i]

Although the case presents a common form of consumer false advertising litigation, the Plaintiff’s emphasis on toxic heavy metals—coupled with public health authority citations and Proposition 65 exceedances—elevates the potential litigation exposure. Importantly, while class action claims are typically amortized over a large population of modest-value claimants, the emotional volatility of toxic exposure allegations increases the unpredictability of jury outcomes and signals a growing risk of “nuclear verdicts,” even in consumer fraud settings.

Facts

Plaintiff Mark Gonzalez seeks to represent a class of California and nationwide consumers who purchased certain products during the statutory period. The central premise of the Complaint is that the Defendant’s sea salt products were contaminated with lead (0.460 μg/serving) and arsenic (0.14 μg/serving), both of which allegedly exceed California Proposition 65 thresholds for exposure warnings. Plaintiff contends that the Defendant misrepresented the safety and purity of its products via labeling, including claims such as “Vital Mineral Blend,” “Recommended by Doctors,” and “Good Manufacturing Practices,” which the Complaint collectively refers to as “High Quality and Healthy Representations.”

Testing results, cited from unspecified laboratory sources, purportedly confirm the presence of these heavy metals at levels that violate California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Prop 65) thresholds for required warnings (0.5 μg/day for lead). According to Plaintiff, consumers are deceived into believing the products are pure, healthy, and superior to competing salts on the market.

Three statutory causes of action are alleged:

1. Violation of the CLRA (Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.)
2. Violation of the UCL (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.)
3. Breach of Implied Warranties (both fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability)

Notably, the Plaintiff also demands injunctive relief, corrective advertising, restitution, and punitive damages. He references a prior October 2024 Prop 65 notice to argue that the Defendant had knowledge of the contamination and continued selling the product regardless.

Analysis of the Putative Class

The putative class is broad, seeking certification of all purchasers of the products across the United States. Although defense teams traditionally discount “nuclear verdict” concerns in consumer class actions because of the aggregation of small-dollar claims, two key features elevate the risk here:

1. Toxic Contamination Theory

The focus on lead and arsenic elevates the perceived gravity of the claims. These substances are associated with long-term, irreversible health damage, especially in children. Emotional resonance at trial could fuel juror reactivity beyond standard compensatory logic.

2. Recent Trend Toward Outsized Verdicts

California has seen an uptick in high-value awards in class actions where the underlying conduct is framed as reckless or deceptive and implicates public health or safety. Even without bodily injury, the combination of alleged corporate indifference and deceptive branding may create a volatile damages environment.

Should class certification be granted, the risk of a punitive damages multiplier will require serious consideration in pre-trial posture and any Rule 23(f) appeals. The Plaintiff’s demand for both monetary and injunctive relief also adds complexity—if the latter is granted, it could carry operational consequences across Celtic’s full distribution network.

Defense Posture and Risk Exposure

While the suit is styled as a typical California consumer class action, its framing around alleged toxic exposure places the defense in a materially riskier posture than standard food mislabeling cases. Not only is there a statutory predicate under Proposition 65 for strict liability civil penalties, but the Complaint strategically invokes public safety fears—i.e., chronic poisoning, cancer risk, and child development harm. These allegations raise the emotional stakes and could provoke heightened jury scrutiny or increased settlement leverage during certification and trial. That said, a path to dismissal or limitation remains viable under California law and federal pleading standards for the few reasons described herein.

First, there is a lack of standing for actual injury. No personal injury is pled; rather, the Plaintiff seeks economic loss for “overpayment.” This can support a motion to dismiss under Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court[ii] but may be insufficient to knock out class claims altogether, particularly under the “price premium” theory of economic harm.

Second, the Complaint heavily emphasizes the “net impression” theory but lacks individualized reliance or survey data. These omissions may support a Rule 9(b) challenge for fraud-based allegations or a narrowing of the class definition

Finally, while less likely to succeed due to California’s independent authority under Prop 65 and consumer protection laws, any overlap with FDA regulatory thresholds could potentially create preemption or primary jurisdiction arguments.

Conclusion

This action, while rooted in familiar consumer protection statutes, carries elevated risk because of its toxic exposure narrative and potential for adverse publicity and punitive exposure. The defense should prioritize pre-certification motions, leverage testing and regulatory science, and proactively frame the narrative around trace-level exposure and product compliance.

Keep Reading

Environmental Friendly Class Action Against Maker of Gore-Tex Based on Speculation Why I Chose to Become an Attorney You’re Out? Additional Litigation Uncertain After Judge Denies Certifying Class of Ex-NCAA Baseball Players Grow Your Legal Practice with Returning Clients and Referrals Strategic Anchoring: Using Cognitive Bias to Win Negotiations Laughing Gas Is No Laughing Matter: New Lawsuit May Impose Strict Liability on Nitrous Oxide Manufacturers for Marketing Practices In Florida, What You See is What You Get Whether You Click on It or Not Don’t Let It Be “A License to Kill Your Case” — How to Vet Investigators Effectively Trial Prep: Expectation vs. Reality

More by this author

Salty Situation: Class Action Lawsuit Against Salt Manufacturer Alleges Improper Levels of Heavy Metals You’re Out? Additional Litigation Uncertain After Judge Denies Certifying Class of Ex-NCAA Baseball Players It Ends with Lawsuits for Hollywood Co-Stars Stale Bread: Workers Accuse Panera of Wage Theft Red Hot Water: Former Chili Pepper Guitarist Sued in Wrongful Death Action A Seat at the Table: Supreme Court Rules Insurers Have a Right to Be “Heard on Any Issue” in Chapter 11 Cases To Speak or Not to Speak: Appellate Court Rules on Doctors’ Defamation Lawsuit Modern Headache: Actress Sofia Vergara is Sued for $1.7 Million by Former Contractor A League of Their Own: Sports Leagues’ Novel Argument Fails to Persuade California Appellate Court

Sources

[i] Mark Gonzalez v. Celtic Ocean International, LLC, 2:25-cv-01177, (C.D.C.A.).

[ii] 51 Cal.4th 310 (2011).