Could Lawyers Use This As A Legal Loophole?

My cup says “sans BPA free”. Is that a lawyer-type, double-negative “play on words” to escape a lawsuit?”
I got this cup and there’s a sticker on it that says “sans BPA free.” Like a lot of people, I took that to mean without BPA. Well, then I realized that “sans” means “without, lacking”. That is a bilingual double negative. Um, so that means NOT BPA FREE. Does that mean that my cup has BPA?
Just to make it clear, there’s a sticker on the side with the word “sans” on top, “BPA” in the middle, and “free” on the bottom. Then there’s a leaf under the word “free”. The cup has the word “bubba” on the side, so I assume that the brand is “Bubba.” The cup is made in China. Actually, another sticker on the bottom of the cup says “bubba 32 oz” and the barcode and barcode number, and the words “made in China”. The barcode number says 607869042341.
Some points in no particular order…
* It’s not a Chinese sticker. The cup was made in China, but the sticker was made in the USA.
* This could mean no BPA, but it could also mean some BPA. It’s what’s called a “double entendre” or “double speak.”
* Bisphenol A (BPA) is an industrial chemical used to make some polycarbonate plastic resins, epoxy resins, and other products, and often causes various bad health effects.
* Various online sources proclaim, “Bubba Kegs DO NOT contain BPA”. Maybe not anymore, but is Bubba slapping these “sans BPA free” stickers on their old cups that still have BPA? Also, electronic media can easily be altered and deleted. This sticker is tangible, and difficult to terminate in the event of a lawsuit, which is why it has to be carefully worded, and the sticker could be interpreted as “not BPA free.”
* According to some Canadian laws, a sticker must say that it’s BPA free in French, and the sticker could be interpreted that way. However, “sans” is both English and French. “Sans” is a “loan word.” Even if it is bilingual, does that still counter the fact that it’s ALSO a double negative?
* The Bubba brand could avoid ambiquity by having a sticker that says “Sans BPA / BPA free.” Note how BPA is used twice. THIS avoids a double entendre. I realize that there’s one sticker because it costs less than two stickers, but why not put the “BPA” twice anyway?
I posted this on the Words & Wordplay section, but I decided to repost it here because a lot of people don’t get it and thought that I needed other things explained to me, instead of answering my question. There are actually a lot of things that I understand about this that I don’t need explained to me. I understand why the common layman could be fooled into siding with corrupt companies and their corrupt lawyers. What I need to know is if it’s feasible for them to get away with it in our flawed judicial system.
What I want to know is if a lawyer could get away with this. Thank you.