Arizona's Attorney General and Reynolds agreed to a proposed consent judgment over Hefty bags marketed as recyclable. It provides $30,000 for consumer restitution, with the state deciding who is paid, and bars that marketing in Arizona; there is no claim form. The court has not yet approved the settlement.

Benefit Summary
Eligible class members may receive Amount not stated.
Aggregate benefits cap: $30,000.
Available Awards
Amount not stated
Who Is Included
The Attorney General has sole discretion over which consumers are eligible for restitution and how and when restitution funds are distributed.
- Products included: Hefty transparent blue and clear bags, including 13- and 30-gallon options that were labeled “RECYCLING.”
Questions & Answers
How much could consumers receive?
What an individual consumer may receive cannot be determined from this judgment.
- The consent judgment sets aside $30,000 as consumer restitution. It does not set an individual payment amount or promise that any particular person will receive a payment.
- The Attorney General has sole discretion to decide which consumers are eligible and how and when any restitution is distributed.
- If money remains after distributions to eligible consumers, it goes to an Arizona consumer-protection fund rather than being divided among consumers.
Does this judgment tell consumers how to claim restitution?
- No. This consent judgment does not provide a claim form, an application method, a claim deadline, or a list of documents consumers must submit.
- It leaves the timing and method of any consumer distribution, as well as eligibility, to the State’s discretion. The judgment therefore does not state a consumer claim procedure.
Which Hefty bags does the judgment discuss?
- The judgment concerns Hefty transparent blue and clear plastic bags.
- It describes 13- and 30-gallon versions sold since at least 2019 that were labeled “RECYCLING.”
- The State’s allegations also concerned later clear and blue packaging and related website images. However, the judgment itself does not define a consumer group that is automatically eligible based on buying a particular product or during a particular period.
When is Reynolds required to pay, and does the PDF show a payment date?
- Reynolds must pay the $30,000 consumer-restitution amount within 10 days after the consent judgment is entered by the court.
- The judgment’s effective date is the court-entry date. The court date line on the judgment is blank in the supplied PDF, so this document does not show the calendar due date.
- The companies also agreed to pay $157,000 to the State and $25,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Those are separate from the consumer-restitution amount.
What marketing changes does the judgment require?
- Reynolds may not market or sell Hefty plastic bags labeled “recycling bags” in Arizona unless the bags are accepted for recycling at a substantial majority of recycling facilities in the state.
- It also may not advertise Hefty plastic bags as widely accepted by Arizona municipal recycling programs unless a substantial majority of municipalities actually accept them for recycling.
- If Reynolds puts the clear or blue bags back on its Hefty website, it must explain that bagged recycling pickup is limited and that the bags should be used only in participating municipal programs.
Will Reynolds have to remove bags already on store shelves?
- Reynolds must redesign the packaging for its transparent blue and clear bags as shown in Attachment A. The updated examples remove the contents from the bag image, replace the green banner with light blue, and add that the bags are not recyclable.
- The judgment estimates that implementing the redesign nationwide will take about 18 months and cost at least $80,000.
- Reynolds does not have to recall or remove existing products for sale in Arizona, and it does not have to contact third-party sellers or websites.
Can an individual consumer enforce this consent judgment?
- No. The judgment says only the State may seek to enforce its terms, so it does not create an enforcement right for other people.
- It also says the judgment does not limit any private party’s ability to pursue remedies otherwise allowed by law.
Case Details
- Case name: State of Arizona, ex rel. Kris Mayes, Attorney General v. Reynolds Consumer Products, Inc. and Reynolds Consumer Products, LLC
- Case number: CV2025-029649
- Court: Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County
- Administrator: Office of the Arizona Attorney General
Sources
Court-approved notice describing eligibility and benefits