A new lawsuit filed in Seattle federal court accuses Amazon of selling rice products contaminated with dangerous levels of arsenic and other heavy metals.
The proposed class action seeks at least $5 million in damages and has drawn national attention due to the potential health risks and the involvement of popular (and trusted) brands like Whole Foods’ 365 and Ben’s Original.
The Amazon rice lawsuit explained
On May 23, 2025, two consumers filed a class action lawsuit in federal court against Amazon, alleging that the retail giant sold rice products containing dangerous levels of arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury.
The lawsuit, filed in the Western District of Washington, cites recent independent testing commissioned by Healthy Babies Bright Futures (HBBF). Their 2025 study tested 145 rice samples purchased across the country.
Key findings include:
- 100 percent of rice samples contained detectable levels of arsenic
- 28 percent exceeded FDA limits for infant rice cereal
- All but one contained cadmium
- More than one-third contained lead or mercury
According to the complaint, the 18 rice products at issue were sold through Amazon.com, including Whole Foods’ 365 label and other popular brands such as Iberia Basmati and Ben’s Original. The plaintiffs argue that Amazon marketed these rice products to a general audience—including children and pregnant women—but failed to disclose any risks or test for contamination.
The plaintiffs further allege that Amazon’s product listings and packaging omitted critical health information, misleading consumers into believing the rice was safe and nontoxic. Amazon allegedly presented the rice with clean ingredient lists and no disclosure of heavy metals, despite industry knowledge of rice’s tendency to absorb arsenic from water and soil.
The lawsuit cites a wide body of scientific and regulatory evidence showing that no level of these heavy metals is considered safe, especially for infants and toddlers. The plaintiffs are seeking more than $5 million in damages under Washington state’s consumer protection laws, and are asking the court to require Amazon to begin testing and disclosing heavy metal levels in rice products sold on its platform.
Read the full complaint (pdf) here.
What is a product liability claim?
Product liability claims allow injured consumers to hold companies accountable for defective or dangerous products.
In general, a plaintiff in a product liability lawsuit must prove:
- The product was defective or unreasonably dangerous
- The seller or manufacturer failed to warn about known risks
- The defect or danger caused injury or harm
In this case, plaintiffs aren’t alleging they were physically harmed—but that they wouldn’t have purchased (or would have paid less for) the rice had they known about the contamination. These claims fall under a category called “economic harm” cases, which are common in defective food product lawsuits.
How class actions work in consumer safety cases
When many consumers are affected by the same dangerous product, courts often allow the case to proceed as a class action. A few representative plaintiffs (called “class representatives”) bring the case on behalf of everyone who bought the product.
Class actions are especially useful when individual damages are small (like a $10 bag of rice) but the overall harm to consumers is large. In this case, the plaintiffs are seeking $5 million in damages based on Amazon’s alleged failure to warn.
If the class is certified and a settlement or verdict is reached, eligible consumers could receive compensation, even if they weren’t part of the initial lawsuit.
Has Amazon faced lawsuits over dangerous products before?
Yes—and courts are increasingly rethinking how Amazon should be held accountable.
As the world’s largest online retailer, Amazon has faced a number of lawsuits over allegedly unsafe or defective products sold through its marketplace.
These have included exploding hoverboards, faulty carbon monoxide detectors, dog leashes that snapped and caused injuries, and even so-called suicide kits.
Some of these products were sold by third-party vendors, while others were marketed under Amazon’s own brands, like Whole Foods’ 365 label.
For years, Amazon’s defense was that it is a service provider, not a seller. Under traditional product liability law, that meant Amazon couldn’t be held responsible for defective products sold by third parties.
But that legal shield has started to crack.
In Angela Bolger v. Amazon.com, the California Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that Amazon could be held liable after a laptop battery purchased through its platform exploded, causing third-degree burns. The court found that Amazon wasn’t just a passive middleman—it listed, stored, shipped, and processed payment for the battery. That made Amazon a key player in the sale and distribution of the product, and therefore potentially liable.
As the court put it:
“Whatever term we use to describe Amazon’s role, be it ‘retailer,’ ‘distributor,’ or merely ‘facilitator,’ it was pivotal in bringing the product here to the consumer.”
While the ruling is specific to California, other states, including Texas and Pennsylvania, are setting a new precedent.
What consumers can do
If you purchased one of the rice products mentioned in the lawsuit, you may be eligible to join the class action or receive compensation if the lawsuit succeeds.
More broadly, this case is a reminder to:
- Pay attention to product recalls and testing reports
- Report any adverse health effects to the FDA or your state consumer protection agency
- Keep receipts or order history for potential affected products
We’ll continue to monitor the lawsuit and provide updates right here.
#List #Brands #Named #Suit