ÃÛÁÄÖ±²¥

That’s the contention of Attorney General Kris Mayes, who on Wednesday filed suit against the makers of Hefty Recycling Bags.

Mayes contends Reynolds Consumer Products labeled the bags in a way that was deceptive to induce environmentally conscious ÃÛÁÄÖ±²¥ns to purchase them.

And then there’s her argument that people who believe what the company is telling them and buy and use the bags end up causing problems when the bags become entangled in the equipment used to sort recyclables, shutting down the facility.

“ÃÛÁÄÖ±²¥ns believed they were doing the right thing buying these bags, and they paid a premium for these so-called recycling bags when, in fact, they were paying for something that harmed our ability to recycle,’’ Mayes told Capitol Media Services.

“When you try to put these bags into recycling, it often messes with the recycling equipment at the different recycling facilities.’’

Mayes is not just seeking an injunction to force the company to change its labeling, but also require Reynolds to surrender any profits the company made from sales in ÃÛÁÄÖ±²¥. And she wants a judge also to order the company to pay restitution to ÃÛÁÄÖ±²¥ns for the extra amount they spent on the bags, though Mayes acknowledged the details of how that might be accomplished have not yet been worked out.

There was no immediate response from the company.

What the case comes down to is what Reynolds said — and didn’t say — on the labels of the clear and blue bags it has been selling since at least 2019.

The labels initially used the word “recycling.’’ And the photos of the bags showed them filled with things like plastic bottles and paper bags which Mayes said are “clearly recognizable as recyclables to consumers.’’

On the back of the box, it said the bags are “perfect for all your recycling needs.’’ There’s also a drawing of a blue recycling truck, complete with the easily recognized “chasing arrows’’ symbol.

After Connecticut filed its own consumer fraud complaint in 2022, Mayes said Reynolds changed the packaging a bit, still using the word “recycling’’ and still showing pictures of the bags filled with clearly recyclable materials. Below claims that the bags were “developed for use in recycling programs and designed to handle all types of recyclables.’’ Reynolds added a statement that “these bags are not recyclable.’’

“The size, location, and context of this disclosure was inadequate to notify consumers that the so-called ‘recycling’ bags were not recyclable,’’ the attorney general wrote in the lawsuit. She also said a green circle in the shape of an arrow on the box is also misleading because it is similar to that “chasing arrow’’ she said the Federal Trade Commission says “likely conveys that the packaging is both recyclable and made entirely from recycled material.’’

“Using a green arrow to suggest environmental benefits for products that are not actually recyclable is a form of deceptive conduct called ‘greenwashing,’ which involves intentionally applying misleading labels to give the deceptive impression that products are more environmentally conscious or recyclable,’’ Mayes said.

That design led to another lawsuit, this time in Minnesota, resulting in a 2024 consent judgment.

Ultimately, Reynolds came up with yet another new box, this time without the word “recycling.’’ But Mayes said the company still misleads consumers, with its website again showing the bags filled with recycling materials that “appear identical to those used for the original ‘recycling’ bag packaging.’ ‘’

“When you get down to it, even the most recent version of these trash bags lend a clear inference that they are to be used for recycling,’’ Mayes said.

Consider, she said, photos the company uses showing bags full of material to be recycled.

“It’s all wrapped up and it’s closed up,’’ Mayes said. “And that suggests that the person could just toss that thing into the recycling bin when, in fact, you can’t and you shouldn’t because doing so messes with the recycling machine at the city.’’

She said any plastic that is not manually removed from recycled materials before it goes into sorting gets “entangled in the sorting equipment, forcing the material recovery facility to shut down,’’ Mayes said. She said one one firm in Phoenix has to shut downs several times a day to disentangle plastic bags, “costing the city hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, and endangering the workers who must do the disentanglements.’’

“Reynolds profits tens of thousands of dollars every year off of ÃÛÁÄÖ±²¥ consumers buying bags that defendant Reynolds deceptively advertised to consumers as recyclable or for use in recycling,’’ the lawsuit states. “Reynolds knew that few programs in the United States allow bags to be included in recycling programs and that the number of communities that allow bags is declining.’’

All that, Mayes said, violates the state’s Consumer Fraud Act.

“Reynolds knowingly deceived ÃÛÁÄÖ±²¥ consumers by purposefully marketing their products to appeal to consumers motivated to buy more expensive, environmentally friendly products through false and deceptive statements on its packaging,’’ she said.

And what of her demand for reimbursement of consumers?

“We’ll have to figure out how to do that,’’ Mayes said. “This is a tough one because it’s hard to know who bought the bags.’’