1. Introduction
Sprouts Farmers Market and EcoSoul Home Inc. allegedly misled environmentally conscious consumers by marketing single-use tableware as “compostable,” despite allegedly containing significant amounts of PFAS (perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances). These PFAS compounds—which scientists often call “forever chemicals”—do not break down in the environment and have been linked to a range of health hazards, including possible developmental toxicity, thyroid disruption, and cancer. The complaint states that independent laboratory tests revealed PFAS in various Sprouts-branded disposable products such as plates, bowls, straws, and cutlery sets. Despite the packaging’s clear assurances that these items would decompose into non-toxic elements, the lawsuit maintains that these products cannot and will not break down into beneficial compost.
The direct contradiction between Sprouts’ “compostable” labeling and the alleged scientific evidence of persistent, toxic chemicals is the core of the complaint. The “damning” aspect is not a minor technicality: PFAS chemicals, if present in any significant amount, violate established guidelines for what can rightfully be claimed as compostable—especially in jurisdictions like California that set strict thresholds on organic fluorine (the chemical marker used to identify the presence of PFAS) in compostable-labeled products.
At stake is more than just accurate labeling. Local communities, consumers, and industrial composting facilities that rely on truthful environmental claims are at risk of unwittingly distributing dangerous contaminants into soil and, ultimately, the food chain. Additionally, consumers who believed they were doing the right thing—paying a premium for eco-friendly disposables—may have contributed to pollution. These allegations reflect a broader tension under neoliberal capitalism, where regulatory regimes often rely on corporate self-compliance, and where “green” product marketing can serve as a potent profit driver, sometimes at the expense of consumer trust and the public health.
In the paragraphs that follow, we will explore in detail how the class action complaint frames this alleged deception. We’ll also tie these accusations to broader, systemic concerns about corporate social responsibility, economic fallout, corporate accountability, neoliberal capitalism, wealth disparity, corporate ethics, corporate corruption, corporate greed, and corporate pollution, as well as the dangers to public health from corporate malfeasance. By the end, the reader should have not only a thorough understanding of the Sprouts/EcoSoul allegations but also a clearer picture of how such alleged misconduct resonates within the larger economic and social framework—one in which profit maximization often collides with environmental integrity.
2. Corporate Intent Exposed
Facts.
According to the class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of California, Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. and EcoSoul Home Inc. marketed a line of single-use bowls, plates, cups, cutlery, and straws under the Sprouts brand. On the packaging, consumers found the label “compostable,” sometimes accompanied by statements such as “PFAS Free” or touting third-party certifications. These assurances led many shoppers—particularly those who frequent Sprouts precisely for its advertised emphasis on natural, clean, and eco-friendly products—to purchase these items at premium prices.
Yet far from being biodegradable, these products contain PFAS at concentrations that exceed acceptable thresholds under California law. The lawsuit further claims that Sprouts and EcoSoul either knew or should have known that such levels of PFAS automatically disqualify these products from genuinely being compostable. Indeed, California’s Public Resources Code § 42357(g)(1)(C) bars products containing more than 100 parts per million of organic fluorine from being labeled “compostable.” The plaintiff’s independent lab results allegedly show that multiple items—plates, bowls, straws, and cutlery—have PFAS levels far above that limit.
Moreover, the legal complaint references the Federal Trade Commission’s “Green Guides,” which define the term “compostable” and caution marketers not to misrepresent compostability claims. Under the Green Guides, a product claiming to be “compostable” should fully break down in a “safe and timely manner” without leaving behind harmful chemicals. As the complaint points out, PFAS are often called “forever chemicals” exactly because they do not break down under typical composting conditions, or even under specialized industrial processes. When introduced to compost, PFAS can persist indefinitely in the environment, seeping into soil and water.
Placing the “Green” Marketing Tactics in Context
“In a broader context,” large corporations have increasingly leveraged environmental marketing claims, known colloquially as “greenwashing.” Over the last decade, consumers have grown more aware of environmental degradation, and many actively seek products that do less harm. For a company, capitalizing on that demand can be extremely profitable. This phenomenon is neither new nor limited to Sprouts or EcoSoul. Many big brands across multiple industries—beauty, fashion, consumer electronics—have come under scrutiny for overstating or fabricating their environmental benefits.
The critical difference in this case, as the complaint highlights, is that compostability is not just a marketing term but a regulated claim under both state and federal guidelines. Consumers generally understand “compostable” to mean “entirely capable of breaking down into non-toxic components that benefit the soil.” Where PFAS are involved, that promise appears untenable—PFAS simply do not degrade into beneficial soil additives but instead accumulate in the environment, with potential health consequences for communities.
Potential Motives at Play
Why would a retailer as large as Sprouts (with over a hundred stores in California alone, according to publicly available SEC filings) and a manufacturer like EcoSoul risk the fallout from a false advertising or breach-of-warranty claim? From a strictly corporate accountability perspective, it could be an inadvertent oversight: maybe their supply chain partners introduced PFAS treatments for grease or water resistance without fully informing them. Alternatively, from a skeptical viewpoint on neoliberal capitalism, this might just be one more example of profit-driven corners cut at the expense of due diligence and environmental stewardship. The lawsuit specifically raises the possibility that Sprouts and EcoSoul knew or had reason to know these products fell short of compostability standards yet sold them anyway.
Whichever motive is proven in court, the net result is the same: consumers looking for greener, compostable single-use options may have been misled, and the environment they sought to protect may have been exposed to a chemical threat. The complaint’s “corporate intent exposed” angle is thus less about moral condemnation than about holding these companies legally responsible for a product labeling practice that the complaint deems both deceptive and illegal.
3. The Corporate Playbook / How They Got Away with It
Alleged Steps in the “Playbook”
The complaint offers a roadmap of how Sprouts and EcoSoul allegedly “got away with” selling PFAS-laden tableware as compostable:
- Green Marketing
By labeling and advertising these products as “compostable,” “plant-based,” and “PFAS Free,” Defendants positioned them as an ethical, responsible choice, appealing to an increasingly eco-conscious consumer base willing to pay a premium for perceived sustainability. - Invoking Third-Party Certifications
The complaint states that the packaging bore the logo of the Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI), an independent organization that certifies compostability. In many cases, consumers trust these seals without investigating whether the standards have changed or how thoroughly the certification is policed. - Consumer Trust in Brand Identity
Sprouts has established itself as a store focused on fresh, natural, and healthful products. Shoppers frequent such stores under the assumption that quality and integrity are paramount. Labeling these items “Sprouts” brand presumably carried an aura of trust. - Opaque Supply Chains
The manufacturer, EcoSoul, is alleged to have introduced or left intact significant amounts of PFAS in the finished products to achieve qualities like grease resistance or durability. PFAS are used in many single-use paper goods for that reason. However, the complaint notes that these chemicals violate the very premise of compostability. Whether EcoSoul informed Sprouts about the presence of PFAS is not specified in the filing; often, supply chain complexities help obscure responsibility. - Limited Regulatory Oversight
Though there are laws such as California’s Public Resources Code, the Federal Trade Commission’s guidelines, and consumer-protection statutes like the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), enforcement can lag behind corporate marketing. Until a lawsuit brings the issue to court, many such claims might slip by.
Historical Parallels in Corporate Tactics
“Historically, corporations in similar lawsuits have” used several well-worn tactics when confronted with claims of greenwashing:
- Feigning Ignorance: Company representatives state they had no idea their product contained harmful substances.
- Pointing to Subcontractors: The blame is shifted to manufacturing partners or raw material suppliers, under the claim that the brand itself was unaware of the final formulation.
- Revising Labels: Sometimes, companies will quietly adjust product labeling and descriptions, removing “compostable” or other contested terms, then claim any prior mislabeling was an innocent oversight.
- Out-of-Court Settlements: Facing potential reputational damage, companies might settle with plaintiffs, offering refunds or small monetary amounts, rather than risk a protracted public legal battle.
All of these maneuvers could apply here, though the complaint does not detail any specific internal communications. The underlying principle is often the same: by maintaining a veneer of eco-consciousness, the corporation can reap substantial revenues from a growing consumer demographic that prioritizes corporate social responsibility. If cornered by regulators or private lawsuits, they adopt a familiar defense: the problem was either unknown or minimal, and any breach of trust can be remedied quietly.
The Absence of Immediate Oversight
The complaint indicates that thousands of these allegedly PFAS-laden products might have been sold in California throughout 2024 alone, contributing to a significant revenue stream. The question arises: Why was there no swift regulatory intervention, especially given California’s relatively strict statutory guidelines on PFAS content for compostable-labeled products?
One answer lies in the challenge of real-time enforcement. Regulators often rely on consumer complaints or external tip-offs to investigate. If neither retailers nor consumers are aware of the issue, there is little impetus for an official inquiry. This gap—where corporations can tout unverified eco-claims until someone with resources sues—illustrates the structural problem of regulatory capture and underfunded oversight in the current neoliberal capitalism environment.
In essence, “how they got away with it” might simply reflect an asymmetry of information—Sprouts and EcoSoul presumably knew the product’s full formulation, but the average consumer did not, and enforcement agencies typically do not test every item on store shelves. Until an injured party takes the initiative, the system’s built-in checks remain dormant.
4. Crime Pays / The Corporate Profit Equation
The Premium for “Compostable” Products
A key facet of the complaint is the assertion that consumers are willing to pay more for products advertised as compostable, biodegradable, or otherwise eco-friendly. Many single-use tableware options cost far less than the Sprouts-branded items. According to the lawsuit, this price difference can be attributed to the perceived benefit of using an environmentally safe, beneficial-to-soil product instead of a planet-polluting alternative.
From the vantage point of corporate greed, this disparity can be exploited for profit: by adding the label “compostable” to the packaging, the complaint alleges, Sprouts and EcoSoul opened the door to higher markups and volume sales. The complaint references specific times when the plaintiff paid “significantly more” for these items than he would have for regular plastic or paper goods—solely because of the compostability claim.
Market Demand and Financial Incentives
In a neoliberal capitalist framework, profit-maximization stands as the paramount incentive. The unstoppable drive to appease shareholders or investors can pressure companies to cut corners or push questionable marketing claims. Although the complaint does not detail the precise margins, it does point to SEC filings and states that Sprouts generates substantial revenues—over $2.4 billion from non-perishable products in the first three quarters of 2024 alone. Even a fraction of that, attributed to “green” tableware, could represent substantial profits.
The alleged wrongdoing thus fits neatly into what critics see as a larger pattern: “Crime pays,” at least temporarily, if the cost of abiding by compostability regulations and verifying PFAS content is higher than the short-term gains from claiming a product to be compostable. Moreover, lawsuits of this nature are time-consuming. Companies often calculate that even if they lose in court, the resulting penalties or settlements may be offset by the sales they reaped in the interim.
The Broader Economic Fallout
When corporations misrepresent product attributes, local communities can suffer. PFAS contamination, if widespread, can impose real costs:
- Public Health Costs: PFAS chemicals can accumulate in water supplies and farmland, leading to downstream medical expenses and the burden on local healthcare infrastructures.
- Agricultural Impacts: Composting facilities incorporate such tableware into compost piles, assuming it will break down. Instead, PFAS remain and spread into soils, crops, and livestock, potentially hurting farmers who unknowingly produce PFAS-contaminated goods.
- Waste Management: Municipalities invest heavily in composting programs to reduce landfill waste. Contaminated compost might force entire batches to be rerouted to landfills, undermining local environmental initiatives and wasting taxpayer resources.
In this sense, the so-called “crime pays” equation is only valid from the standpoint of short-term corporate ledgers. From the vantage of communities and future generations, these practices pose a long-term economic fallout that dwarfs whatever short-term gains the corporation may have realized. And because the alleged deception here directly targets well-intentioned consumers, the moral and social ramifications are amplified: people who wanted to reduce pollution might have inadvertently contributed to it.
Links to Wealth Disparity
One could also see this scenario as emblematic of wealth disparity. Environmentally responsible products usually come at a higher price point—only those with disposable income can afford them regularly. If these products turn out to be fraudulently labeled, it is often lower-income communities that bear the brunt of pollution (from soil contamination to compromised municipal composting). Meanwhile, corporations and their upper echelons extract profits, perpetuating a cycle of corporate corruption and inequality. Although the complaint does not delve explicitly into these socio-economic dynamics, such concerns reflect widely discussed themes whenever greenwashing allegations surface in consumer-product industries.
5. System Failure / Why Regulators Did Nothing
Legal Framework in Brief
The complaint anchors its allegations in several specific statutory and regulatory frameworks:
- California Public Resources Code
Section 42357(g)(1)(C) sets a cap on organic fluorine concentrations for any product labeled “compostable.” Surpassing 100 parts per million disqualifies such labeling. - The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act and the “Green Guides”
The “Green Guides” provide guidance on the use of environmental marketing claims. They require that if a product is labeled “compostable,” it must fully degrade into beneficial soil additives and not leave behind toxic residues. - California Business & Professions Code
§§ 17200 (the Unfair Competition Law) and 17500 (the False Advertising Law) provide a means for state attorneys or private plaintiffs to sue companies over misleading or deceptive claims. - California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
The CLRA forbids making false or misleading statements about the characteristics or benefits of a consumer good.
Given this robust legal architecture, how could it be that thousands of allegedly PFAS-laden tableware products were sold as compostable across California, even after the passage of statutes restricting PFAS in compostable products?
Enforcement Gaps and Regulatory Capture
Regulatory capture and deregulation are hallmark features of neoliberal capitalism: agencies tasked with enforcing these rules often lack the funds, expertise, or political will to pursue every violation. Moreover, they frequently depend on corporate disclosures. If a company does not voluntarily test or report the presence of PFAS, agencies might only discover it through consumer complaints, watchdog investigations, or in this case, a private lawsuit.
In many industries, the burden falls on the public to uncover deceptive practices and push for governmental intervention. This outsourcing of enforcement to private litigants and consumers can lead to a patchwork system where unscrupulous behavior is not caught until it becomes widespread or harmful enough to attract media coverage and litigation. As a result:
- Companies exploit the time lag: By the time regulators or plaintiffs mount a case, the corporation has already sold large quantities of the product.
- Settlements can be small compared to profits: Even if a corporation is ultimately sanctioned, the fines or settlements might be a fraction of the revenue earned.
- Complex supply chains diffuse blame: Defendants can claim ignorance, or point to certification bodies that gave them the green light.
A Cautionary Tale
The Sprouts/EcoSoul matter is thus a microcosm of a larger dilemma in the consumer-products world: laws exist, but rely heavily on corporate compliance and voluntary self-audits. This “system failure” effectively demands that someone step forward with enough evidence and resources to initiate legal action. That’s precisely what the plaintiff, Randy Tyndall, has done here. Armed with independent lab results, he alleges that Defendants’ labeling and sales practices violated multiple statutes. The lawsuit itself—rather than consistent, proactive regulatory checks—may be the impetus that compels Sprouts and EcoSoul to change their marketing, labeling, or manufacturing processes.
The Challenge for Consumers
One might ask: Why didn’t more shoppers speak up sooner? The complaint explains that average consumers assume that if a product is offered at a reputable grocery store under its own brand name, and it claims a recognized certification (like BPI’s compostable seal), it must be true. Only someone who invests in third-party testing or has specialized knowledge of PFAS chemical analysis might suspect otherwise. This reality once again underscores the imbalance between corporate marketing machines and individual consumer capacity—a hallmark of wealth disparity and corporate ethics debates in the modern marketplace.
Ultimately, whether regulators “did nothing” out of negligence or resource constraints, the effect is the same: PFAS-laden “compostable” plates, bowls, and straws made their way into countless households and compost facilities, defeating the very environmental goals they purported to serve.
6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug
The Structural Drivers Under Neoliberal Capitalism
Many critics argue that alleged deceptions like those in the Sprouts/EcoSoul case aren’t anomalies; rather, they reflect structural incentives under neoliberal capitalism, where the free market is presumed to self-correct via competition and consumer choices. Unfortunately, in highly technical areas—such as determining the presence of PFAS in compostable tableware—consumers cannot easily detect misinformation.
Hence, the lawsuit’s central argument resonates with the notion that a “pattern of predation” is baked into a system that prioritizes financial returns above all else. Corporate corruption, corporate greed, and corporate pollution become byproducts of a system that only penalizes wrongdoing after the harm is discovered, and even then, often lightly in comparison to potential profits.
Parallel Cases in Other Industries
“Historically, corporations in similar lawsuits have” been caught using “forever chemicals” in a range of consumer items. High-profile controversies have erupted over PFAS in firefighting foams, non-stick cookware, fast-food packaging, and stain-resistant fabrics. The common thread is always the same: PFAS offer desirable performance benefits but come with a litany of environmental and health risks. Meanwhile, marketing often skirts these issues or disguises them behind eco-friendly buzzwords.
This phenomenon underscores how corporate social responsibility can devolve into a superficial PR strategy when not accompanied by genuine transparency. In each instance, once the pattern is revealed, the public sees that the presence of PFAS was never a bug in the system—it was a profitable feature because it added product qualities that boosted sales.
The Impact on Local Communities and Workers
Beyond the immediate deception and potential health hazards to consumers, local communities and labor forces may find themselves bearing the brunt of corporate misconduct. For example:
- Waste Management Workers: Individuals at composting sites may be exposed to PFAS-laden dust or residues. Over time, these chemicals could accumulate in their bodies, leading to potential long-term health issues.
- Farmers and Agricultural Communities: If compost is polluted with PFAS, it can contaminate soil used for growing crops or grazing livestock. This, in turn, might degrade agricultural yields or taint produce and meat, making them less marketable.
- Healthcare Strain: PFAS exposure has been linked to higher rates of certain illnesses, placing a strain on local clinics and hospitals, which may already be underfunded.
From this vantage, the “pattern of predation” extends to harming workers who often are the least financially capable of bearing the costs of medical interventions or missed wages due to PFAS-related conditions. This dynamic only amplifies wealth disparity by disproportionately affecting lower-income groups.
Why It Continues
If there is public outrage and a legal framework in place, why do we keep seeing these incidents? Several interconnected reasons might be considered in a general sense:
- High Profit Margins: Introducing PFAS can make a product more functional, leading to greater consumer appeal.
- Low Discovery Probability: Technical knowledge is required to detect PFAS, giving corporations a window of minimal scrutiny.
- Lenient Penalties: Even when caught, the cost of settlement or fines may be dwarfed by the profits earned.
- Regulatory Complexity: Different states and countries have patchwork regulations, making it easy to shift production or marketing claims if one jurisdiction cracks down.
While the complaint focuses squarely on the alleged wrongdoing by Sprouts and EcoSoul in selling non-compostable goods as compostable, these systemic factors help explain why such allegations are not rare in a global market shaped by maximized shareholder returns and limited direct oversight.
7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control
Anticipated Responses
Though Sprouts and EcoSoul have not, at the time of this writing, publicly released detailed statements (beyond what might be included in legal pleadings), “historically, corporations in similar lawsuits have” deployed a standard PR playbook when confronted with allegations of corporate greed and wrongdoing:
- Immediate Denial or Minimization
Companies often start by insisting that the claims are “unsubstantiated” or that the levels of harmful chemicals found are within some acceptable limit (though not necessarily referencing the actual legal standard relevant to compostability). - Redirecting Blame
Many will suggest that a supplier or third party was responsible for the PFAS. In this case, Sprouts might point to EcoSoul, while EcoSoul could claim it had documentation from raw material providers guaranteeing no PFAS. - Announcing Internal Investigations
The brand might pledge to investigate the supply chain or test additional products. Sometimes, these investigations lack transparency; the company may provide no updates unless legally compelled. - Quiet Settlements
If litigation continues, corporations may opt for an out-of-court settlement that requires minimal admission of guilt. They might promise to change labels or reformulate the product but do so incrementally to avoid negative headlines.
Why PR Plays a Central Role
In the age of corporate social responsibility marketing, image is everything. Sprouts in particular has carefully cultivated a reputation as a grocer for health- and environment-conscious consumers. If a substantial portion of its market share is derived from this brand identity, any suggestion of corporate corruption or misleading eco-claims could be devastating. Maintaining consumer trust is thus paramount.
EcoSoul, as the manufacturer, likewise has an interest in preserving its B2B relationships, not only with Sprouts but with other potential retail partners. If EcoSoul’s brand becomes synonymous with PFAS-laced tableware, other retailers—particularly those also hoping to position themselves as green—may distance themselves from the company.
Controlling the Narrative
Companies also frequently highlight philanthropic or sustainability initiatives to divert attention from controversies. They might fund environmental nonprofits, adopt sustainability goals, or tout upcoming product lines with improved credentials. Such tactics can help overshadow negative press, providing a “silver lining” for media stories.
However, the complaint’s allegations, if proven accurate, might undermine any positive messaging from Sprouts or EcoSoul. Consumers who learn that the “compostable” label was allegedly incorrect could feel betrayed, and efforts at “damage control” might appear disingenuous—especially if these efforts do not address the root cause, namely the PFAS content and its potential environmental impacts.
Lessons from Past Greenwashing Scandals
“In a broader context,” many large corporations that faced greenwashing claims (in the apparel, automotive, and consumer product sectors) found that swift, transparent action can mitigate brand damage. Denying wrongdoing in the face of credible evidence may backfire, while earnest cooperation with regulators, immediate correction of labels, and offering consumer refunds can sometimes restore a measure of trust.
Whether Sprouts and EcoSoul will follow such steps remains to be seen. The complaint demands not only compensation for consumers but also injunctive relief, which if granted, would force changes to product labeling and marketing. From a purely economic fallout angle, how they handle their public image could influence whether loyal shoppers stay with Sprouts or switch to other grocery chains with stronger environmental track records.
8. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest
Larger Themes and the Neoliberal Dilemma
The lawsuit filed by plaintiff Randy Tyndall raises critical questions about where corporate power collides with public interest. Under neoliberal capitalism, corporations operate in a climate of comparative deregulation and rely heavily on global supply chains. When a brand’s identity is built on environmental virtue, as many argue Sprouts’ is, the revelation of potential PFAS contamination undercuts its moral and ethical stance. This tension exemplifies the inherent conflict between short-term profit motives and the long-term welfare of consumers, communities, and ecosystems.
Many critics note that this tension is not accidental but baked into corporate structures where executives are incentivized through stock options or profit-based bonuses. Meaningful shifts in corporate behavior, they argue, require either robust enforcement of corporate accountability laws or a sea change in consumer expectations. Lawsuits such as the one against Sprouts and EcoSoul become a tool to keep corporations in check. Yet, these actions can be slow, expensive, and limited to well-documented, specific harms. The complaint itself seeks injunctive relief, restitution, and damages, but it can only target the alleged misconduct involving these particular single-use tableware items. Systemic reform, if any, must come from broader policy efforts.
Empathy for Consumers and Communities
From an empathy-driven viewpoint, we must underscore the potential harm:
- Financial Loss: People paid extra for compostable goods because they truly wanted to support an eco-friendly option. They effectively wasted their money on a false promise.
- Environmental Harm: Municipal composting facilities and home composters integrated these PFAS-laden products into compost streams, potentially undermining soil health and contaminating local water supplies.
- Public Health: PFAS exposure, especially at scale, can have unknown ripple effects in communities, compounding existing health disparities.
Skepticism on Future Corporate Change
One question the lawsuit implicitly raises is whether companies under the constant drive for growth will significantly change their behavior if they remain structurally rewarded for risk-taking. Even if Sprouts and EcoSoul lose or settle, the outcome might simply be a cost of doing business. True accountability might require punitive damages, heightened regulatory scrutiny, or strong consumer backlash leading to significant brand damage and lost market share.
Historically, after big scandals, corporations have indeed pivoted to more cautious marketing. Yet critics maintain that lasting change is elusive in the environment of perpetual corporate profit-seeking. For many, it remains a wait-and-see proposition whether eco-labeling will become more transparent and whether the interests of the public can consistently prevail over the corporate bottom line.
We upload 4 new articles on corporate misconduct every single day! To read them as they come out, visit:
Evil Corporations neglecting safety protocols to cut costs, risking consumer harm for higher profits: https://evilcorporations.org/category/product-safety-violations/
Evil Corporations deliberately contaminating ecosystems to avoid expenses, prioritizing greed over sustainability: https://evilcorporations.org/category/environmental-violations/
Evil Corporations exploiting workers through unsafe conditions and unfair wages to maximize corporate gains: https://evilcorporations.org/category/labor-exploitation/
Evil Corporations recklessly mishandling or exploiting personal data, prioritizing profit over user security and consent, often exposing individuals to harm or manipulation: https://evilcorporations.org/category/data-breach-privacy/
Evil Corporations manipulating records to mislead stakeholders, enabling illicit wealth accumulation and systemic corruption: https://evilcorporations.org/category/financial-fraud/
Evil Corporations deceiving consumers with false claims to manipulate demand and conceal product risks: https://evilcorporations.org/category/misleading-marketing/
Evil Corporations doing corporate misconduct that doesn’t neatly fit into the earlier mentioned categories: https://evilcorporations.org/category/misc/
