Aveeno Lines Face Class Actions Over “Naturals” Claims

J&J’s Aveeno brand is the focus of pending class-action suits in Connecticut that question claims for the brand’s sunscreen and baby wash lines and a suit in New York about the Active Naturals personal care line. The complaints allege Aveeno liberally uses the term “natural” for its products that contain a number of synthetic ingredients.

Johnson & Johnson's Aveeno brand is the target of pending class-action complaints alleging the misleading use of “natural” claims for its Natural Protection sunscreens and its Baby Wash and Active Naturals personal care lines.

The lawsuits filed in Connecticut and in New York, the latest related to “natural” personal care claims on packaging and in advertising, are seeking class-action status.

In two complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut Oct. 7, a woman from Trumbull, Conn., claims the firm profited from “unfair” and “deceptive” business practices by marketing sunscreen and baby wash products as “natural” when they contain a number of synthetic ingredients.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of “thousands” of consumers who similarly suffered “an ascertainable loss when they paid a premium for the products over comparable products that are not marketed as consisting of natural ingredients.”

The products at issue in one complaint are marketed under the Aveeno Natural Protection Sunscreen line: Baby Protection Lotion Sunscreen with Broad Spectrum SPF 20 and SPF 50, Natural Protection Lotion Sunscreen with Broad Spectrum SPF 20 and SPF 50, and Aveeno Baby Brand Protection Face Stick with Broad Spectrum SPF 50 and SPF 50+.

The products named in the second complaint are in the Aveeno Baby Brand line: Baby Wash and Shampoo and Baby Calming Comfort Bath wash.

The sunscreen complaint states that the Aveeno products featured statements on principal display panels including “natural,” “100% naturally sourced sunscreen ingredients” and “natural protection.”

However, the products contain synthetic ingredients such as acrylates/dimethicone copolymer, an anti-caking and film-forming agent, emollient behenyl alcohol, humectant butylene glycol, conditioning agent dimethicone and PEG-100 stearate, a synthetic surfactant, according to the plaintiff.

“Certain products also contain unnatural, synthetic ingredients that have a high risk of contamination by 1,4 dioxane, a chemical that is likely to be carcinogenic to humans,” the sunscreen complaint states.

The Baby Wash complaint states Aveeno products contain synthetic ingredients including cocomidopropyl betaine to boost foaming and control viscosity, and Iodopropynyl butylcarbamate as a toxic preservative.

The complaint asserts that Aveeno’s representations “are particularly egregious because the products are marketed for the care of babies,” who “could easily ingest these harmful synthetic ingredients while being bathed.”

In both cases, the plaintiff alleges violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and other state consumer protection laws and seeks a court order certifying the plaintiff as representative for a class of consumers that number in the thousands. “Absent a class action, class members will continue to suffer damages and defendant's misconduct will proceed without remedy,” the complaints state.

The plaintiff also seeks orders declaring J&J's action violates the state laws, as well as undisclosed compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other costs.

J&J’s attorneys have not responded in the cases other than to waive the necessity to be served with a summons by the plaintiff.

Suit Alleges Wider Trend

According to the baby product complaint, the plaintiff purchased two containers of Aveeno Baby Natural Protection Sunscreen Lotion with Broad Spectrum SPF 30 for her 5-year-old son. She relied upon the phrases “natural protection” and “100% naturally-sourced sunscreen ingredients” to justify paying a premium price for the products before determining that the formulas contain synthetic ingredients, the complaint asserts.

The plaintiff paints a picture of what she sees as a wide-scale problem in the current market. “Consumers have become increasingly concerned about the effects of synthetic and chemical ingredients in food, cleaning, bath and beauty and everyday household products” and therefore are willing to pay a premium for products branded as natural, she says.

“Companies such as [J&J] have capitalized on consumer appetite for ‘natural products,’” the plaintiff argues, noting one of the products named in the case is priced $1.04 to $1.38 per-ounce higher than a comparable product from Aveeno that is not promoted as natural.

The plaintiff's lawyers – West Hartford, Conn., firm Izard Nobel, LLP – represented her in a similar suit challenging Aveeno sun care products filed earlier in 2013 in New Jersey. That suit was dismissed without prejudice in September after it was consolidated with a separate lawsuit challenging claims for Aveeno’s Baby Wash products.

New York Litigation

J&J also is defending claims for its Aveeno Active Naturals line in a pending class-action suit filed in May in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by White Plains, N.Y., law firm Meiselman, Packman, Nealon, Scialabba & Baker P.C.

At issue are claims for a number of formulas in the Aveeno Active Naturals line – Creamy Moisturizing Oil with Natural Colloidal Oatmeal and Pure Oat Oil, Therapeutic Shave Gel with Natural Colloidal Oatmeal, Positively Smooth Shave Gel with Natural Soy, Positively Nourishing Comforting Whipped Souffle, Nourish+Moisturize Shampoo and Nourish+Moisturize Conditioner.

The plaintiff, also of White Plains, purchased numerous Active Naturals products over the years from Target, CVS and other stores, the complaint states. His purchases included Creamy Moisturizing Oil, shave gel and shampoo.

The plaintiff and others like him were drawn to the “widespread, uniform marketing campaign” promoting the natural positioning of the line on packaging, the Aveeno website and in ads intending to mislead consumers about the nature of Aveeno ingredients, according to the plaintiff. The complaint also challenges the name of the product line.

The defendant “prominently places the label ‘Active Naturals’ on the products' packaging, even though defendant knows that statement is false and misleading,” says the lawsuit. “Unfortunately for consumers and their children, the Aveeno products are not natural. Rather, the products contain harmful, unnatural, synthetic ingredients.”

The complaint points to a list of synthetic ingredients in the line's Therapeutic Shave Gel, including glycerin, benzaldehyde, triethanolamine, phenoxyethanol and parabens.

Because the products contain synthetic ingredients, the Active Naturals name on labeling and in product marketing is “false, misleading and designed to deceive consumers into purchasing the products,” says the plaintiff.

He alleges J&J violated the New York General Business Law as well as state common law. The plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and monetary damages, including but not limited to compensatory, incidental or consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial, statutory damages in the maximum amount provided by law and punitive damages. The suit also seeks attorneys' fees.

J&J’s attorneys on Oct. 9 filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The court has not scheduled a hearing on the motion.

Earlier in 2013, J&J agreed to settle a lawsuit alleging the firm's Neutrogena Naturals line misled consumers because the products contain petrochemicals and various synthetic ingredients. As part of the agreement, J&J agreed to pay $1.3 million into a fund for class members, plus $500,000 for reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs (Also see "J&J Settles Class Action For “Misleading” Neutrogena Naturals Claims" - Pink Sheet, 28 Jan, 2013.).

A salvo of class action suits targeting the personal care industry has launched in recent years, affecting firms including The Estee Lauder Companies and L'Oreal SA. The trend stems from heightened competition in the industry that is compelling firms to push the envelope with their marketing, as well as FDA's increased focus on beauty claims, which has captured consumers’ attention (Also see "Merck Faces Consumer Suit Over Coppertone UV Claims" - Pink Sheet, 17 Sep, 2012.).