reasonable consumers aren't required to know collagen can't be vegan

Kandel v. Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare, LLC, 2024 WL 965621, No. 23-cv-01967 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2024)

Similar California litigation at a later stage. Kandel alleged that Gross Skincare deceptively labeled and advertised its skincare products as containing collagen when, in fact, they do not.

“Collagen is a protein found exclusively in humans and animals that has been linked to youthful skin, hair, and nails. It is composed of thousands of amino acids intertwined in a specific, unique sequence. Without being sequenced this way, amino acids do not confer the same benefits as collagen.” The products at issue are uniformly branded with the phrase “C + Collagen.” The list of ingredients includes “Collagen Amino Acids”; some products also feature the term “collagen amino acids” in a separate section on the package titled “What It Is”/“What’s In It For You.”

one of the packages at issue: C + Collagen Deep Cream

One side of each package also contains a small symbol indicating that the product is vegan—making “collagen” content impossible. Gross Skincare allegedly knows that consumers will pay more for skincare products that contain collagen and intends for consumers to infer from the “Collagen” branding that the products do so.

blue lines/arrows added by court to highlight relevant terms

NY GBL claims were sufficiently alleged. Gross Skincare argued that the “C + Collagen” phrase didn’t imply that the products contain collagen, but instead that the Vitamin C in the products increases natural production of collagen in the user’s skin. It claimed that the rest of the package clarified that the products contain “collagen amino acids” and are vegan. Because of the label “vegan,” it argued, a reasonable consumer would understand that they do not contain collagen.

This interpretation of “C + Collagen” was “certainly less intuitive than Kandel’s.” Even considered as a whole, the complaint alleged misleadingness. The use of “collagen amino acids” “likely only reaffirms that collagen is an ingredient” and was itself arguably confusing; the label did nothing to explain it.

Even if one accepts Gross Skincare’s definition of “collagen amino acids” as “the building blocks of collagen,” the court did not assume that a reasonable consumer understands that collagen is a protein composed of amino acids. So too with “vegan.” Even if the consumer noticed this small symbol, they’d have to know that collagen comes exclusively from animals.  This certainly couldn’t be assumed on a motion to dismiss.

Breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims under New York law, however, failed, as well as claims on behalf of a nationwide class.

Kandel did have standing as to four products she didn’t buy but that contained the same alleged misrepresentations.