reasonable consumer isn't required to interpret ingredient list for naturalness

Moore v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC, No. 20-cv-09077-JSW,  2021 WL 3524047 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021)

Moore alleged that GSK falsely labeled certain ChapStick products with the claims “100% Natural,” “Natural,” “Naturally Sourced Ingredients,” and “100% Naturally Sourced Ingredients.” The products allegedly contain non-natural, synthetic, artificial, and/or highly processed ingredients. The products are

100% Natural Lip Butter; Total Hydration 100% Natural Lip Balm; Total Hydration Essential Oils Lip Balm; Total Hydration Moisture + Tint Lip Balm; and Total Hydration Natural Lip Scrub, which come in a variety of scents and shades, though Moore alleged that they were substantially similar, identifying twelve allegedly non-natural (etc.) ingredients. Moore alleged that she routinely the Total Hydration 100% Natural Lip Balm in Eucalyptus Mint and Fresh Citrus scents and the Total Hydration Essential Oils Lip Balm in the Happy scent, relying on the natural representations on the label. She alleged a continued desire to purchase the products if they didn’t contain any non-natural ingredients but was currently unable to rely on the truth of the natural representations. She brought the usual California statutory claims, along with breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.

Based on these allegations, Moore had Article III standing for products she didn’t buy, because the products and alleged misrepresentations were substantially similar. Differences might impact class certification or summary judgment, but they weren’t enough to defeat substantial similarity for the purposes of standing. She also had standing to seek injunctive relief. As with prior cases, desire to buy the properly labeled product plus inability to rely on the truth of the packaging constituted a cognizable risk of future harm. Moore alleged that as “an average consumer who is not sophisticated in the chemistry, manufacturing, and formulation of cosmetic products,” she would not be able to differentiate between cosmetic ingredients that are natural and those that are synthetic. Thus, she alleged that she was at risk of reasonably, but incorrectly, assuming that GSK fixed the formulation. “[E]ven if Plaintiff is now aware of some synthetic ingredients, it is plausible that she would still be unable to rely on the Products’ labeling in the future given her allegations that she cannot differentiate between synthetic and natural ingredients.” In any event, the court didn’t think that she should be required to bear the burden of scrutinizing the ingredient list to figure out if the products were really natural.

Moore also adequately stated a claim under Rule 9(b). As to misleadingness, she alleged a definition of natural and alleged that she interpreted the natural representations as claims that the products contained no non-natural, artificial, and/or synthetic ingredients. She also provided a definition of “synthetic” and alleges how each challenged ingredient is non-natural, synthetic, or artificial. Moore further plausibly pled deception by reasonable consumers. Numerous courts in the Ninth Circuit have found it plausible that a reasonable consumer could understand similar ‘natural’ statements, including ‘100% natural,’ ‘natural,’ and ‘naturally-sourced,’ to mean that a product does not contain any non-natural ingredients.” Contrary cases involved limited natural representations, such as “Made with 100% Natural Moisturizers.”