Dr. Squatch is well known for its personal care products for men. According to the complaint filed by plaintiff Jaime Napolitano in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Dr. Squatch’s use of the “natural” label violates consumer expectations because many of the ingredients in the products are synthetic. claims. .
“The products are ‘misbranded’ and misleading because despite their labeling and marketing as ‘Men’s Natural Shampoo’ and ‘Men’s Natural Conditioner,’ the products contain 24 ingredients. At least 15 of these are not ‘natural.’ This term is understood by consumers. ”
Additionally, the complaint highlights the growing consumer demand for natural personal care products, a market with annual sales exceeding $50 billion and growing twice as fast as traditional products. This increase in trend is due to consumer awareness that natural products are safer for personal health and the environment.
A Nielsen report cited in the complaint states, “Whether personal care products contain mostly natural ingredients is very important to nearly half of Americans.”
Dr. Squatch’s label claims appear to directly appeal to this consumer preference. However, the plaintiffs allege that these claims are misleading because Dr. Squatch’s products contain numerous synthetically processed ingredients.
For example, two major product ingredients, decyl glucoside and coco glucoside, are synthesized and produced through a chemical reaction involving glucose and coconut alcohol.
Defining “natural” in personal care products
The lawsuit centers on the definition of “natural” in personal care products, an issue that has long plagued the industry due to the lack of a standardized definition. According to the complaint, “synthetic” refers to ingredients that have been chemically modified from their natural state, while “natural” refers to materials that remain in their original form.
USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has issued guidelines on what is considered “natural.” This includes substances that have not been chemically modified or that are obtained through natural biological processes. However, the U.S. FDA has not defined the term “natural” nor has it established a regulatory definition for this term in cosmetic labeling.
“The second component of decyl glucoside is not naturally occurring because it is created by chemical condensation with glucose polymers,” the complaint alleges. Other ingredients found in Dr. Squatch products, such as xanthan gum, citric acid, and sodium benzoate, are similarly labeled as synthetic due to the industrial processes involved in their production.
“This processing suggests that it is classified as a synthetic product,” the complaint argues, pointing to consumer expectations that natural products avoid extensive chemical processing.
Legal perspective and case law
From a legal perspective, this type of consumer protection and false advertising claims surrounding terms like “natural” are not new. Kelly Bonner, an associate attorney at Duane Morris LLP, said, “From a legal perspective, this type of controversy surrounding what it means for a beauty product to claim to be ‘clean’ or ‘natural’ means. “We’ve seen consumer protection and false advertising before.” ” or “100% natural” with varying levels of success. ”
Bonner further explained that past court decisions set different precedents depending on the specifics of the request and disclosure. “On the other hand, there are cases like last year. finsterJudgment in the Northern District of New York. Court grants plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss class action claims for consumer deception related to the “Clean at Sephora” program because the court concludes that the retailer disclosed the program’s standards very clearly. Ta. “Clean” here does not mean completely natural or free of synthetic ingredients, she said.
“On the contrary, Minnesota’s decision voidIn late September of this year, the court ruled that a retailer’s “clean products” could have led a reasonable consumer to mislead the plaintiffs’ claims of statutory consumer fraud and common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment. The court agreed to proceed with discovery as to whether there is a possibility that ” she added.
He emphasized that there are currently no specific definitions for terms such as “clean” and “natural” in regulatory guidelines. “Claims like clean and natural are not defined by MoCRA or the FTC’s Green Guide.” “The question remains as to whether a reasonable consumer would find those terms misleading in light of the ingredients in the products,” she said, concluding: It is expected that the number of such “clean claim” lawsuits will increase further. ”
Impact on personal care manufacturers
This case is the latest to highlight the legal and reputational risks of bringing natural claims. According to the Environmental Working Group, “No consumer product is less subject to government oversight than cosmetics and other personal care products.” Still, as consumers become more concerned with ingredient transparency, manufacturers may need to adopt more explicit labeling practices.
Legal experts warn that as consumer expectations for natural products rise, so too will scrutiny of labeling practices. One study cited in the complaint shows that consumers are willing to pay at least 10% more for products labeled as natural.
By positioning a product as “natural,” brands may charge a premium and increase the potential for legal disputes if the product fails to meet consumer expectations for natural ingredients.
“As a result of the false and misleading labeling, the products are sold at premium prices,” the complaint alleges, adding that similar products not labeled as “natural” typically sell at lower prices. Ta.
Cosmetics Design reached out to Dr. Squatch for a response, but no comment was received prior to publication.
