P&G fails to clean up “natural” suit over baby wipes

Brenner v. Procter & Gamble Co., No. 16-1093, 2016 WL
8192946 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2016)
Brenner sued on behalf of a putative nationwide class and a
California subclass of those who purchased Pampers “Natural Clean” Baby Wipes.  The individual packaging is green and includes
stylized depictions of flowering plants, animals, and leaves:
The overall box is less ornate, but still greenish:

Brenner alleged that this packaging was “false and
misleading” because the Natural Clean wipes contained “an unnatural and
potentially harmful ingredient called phenoxyethanol.” An FDA press release advising
breastfeeding mothers not to use a particular nipple cream that contained
phenoxyethanol and another troubling ingredient describes phenoxyethanol as “a
preservative that is primarily used in cosmetics and medications” that “can
depress the central nervous system and may cause vomiting and diarrhea, which
can lead to dehydration in infants.” A May 2012 report from the French Agence
Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé cautioned
consumers not to use wipes containing phenoxyethanol on infants under the age
of three because of concerns about the compound’s “reproductive and
developmental toxicity.” The FTC took at least two enforcement actions within
the past year against cosmetic manufacturers of “natural”-labeled products
because they contained phenoxyethanol. The FTC’s press release about the
enforcement actions describes phenoxyethanol as an “artificial ingredient[ ].”  Brenner brought the usual California claims.
P&G argued that Brenner didn’t suffer an an Article III
injury-in-fact because she could not have believed that Pampers Natural Clean
Wipes were free of synthetic chemicals, given her prior lawsuit against
Kimberly-Clark for its Huggies “natural & pure” baby diapers and “Natural
Care” wipes must have made her aware that “natural”-branded baby wipes aren’t
free of synthetic chemicals, including phenoxyethanol. The court refused to
conclude on a motion to dismiss that “any reasonable consumer who was allegedly
misled by a ‘natural’ label would, without question, research every ingredient
found in any similar ‘natural’-branded products to check for synthetic or
potentially harmful chemicals before making a purchase.”  Further, Brenner alleged that the problematic
chemicals involved in the other lawsuit were different, and that her transition
from Huggies to Pampers was a reasonable response after “learning that the
Huggies brand failed to meet her expectations.”  Thus, her allegedly deceptively induced
purchases constituted classic Article III injury.
Still, she couldn’t seek injunctive relief because she didn’t
allege an intent to purchase again if the labeling were fixed.
Because the California statutes use the reasonable consumer
test, they don’t require a showing of fraud unless the plaintiff alleges “a unified
course of fraudulent conduct and rel[ies] entirely on that course of conduct as
the basis of that claim.”  If a claim
only partially sounds in fraud, the court should disregard the allegations of
fraud and consider whether the plaintiff states a claim.  Here, the court wasn’t convinced that the
complaint sounded wholly in fraud. The general allegation that Defendant knew
about the FDA and French government findings didn’t “necessarily” imply that
Defendant made its “natural” claim with the intent to defraud; it was “equally
consistent with an inference that Defendant disagreed with these governmental
findings or found them irrelevant to its product.”
Under this standard, Brenner stated a claim.  The FTC, at least in certain contexts, views
phenoxyethanol to be “artificial” and thus not “natural.” This conclusion wasn’t
dispositive evidence of meaning, but it raised a plausible inference that a
significant portion of consumers could be misled. The product packaging, which
uses a lot of green and depictions of flowering plants, reinforced the
plausibility of misleadingness.  Also,
even if a reasonable consumer wouldn’t believe that a “Natural Clean” baby wipe
contained no synthetic ingredients, it was plausible that a reasonable consumer
would believe such a product did not contain any potentially harmful chemicals.
The bulleted text below the label, “unscented with a touch
of aloe,” was not enough to limit the “natural” claim: it wouldn’t prevent a
reasonable consumer from thinking that the claim meant anything more than “unscented
with a touch of aloe.”  The court refused
to find as a matter of law that a “natural” claim, unmodified by “100%” or
“all,” couldn’t plausibly be deceptive.  Likewise, the fact that “Natural Clean” was a
trade name didn’t prevent it from being deceptive; trademark law doesn’t
preempt California consumer protection law.
P&G also argued that the “Natural Clean” label couldn’t
be actionable because “natural” has no generally-accepted meaning. Most of the
dictionary definitions to which P&G pointed were clearly inapposite:
P&G definitely wasn’t claiming that its wipes are “based on an inherent
sense of right and wrong” (as in “natural justice”) or “relat[ed] by actual
consanguinity as distinguished from adoption” (as in “natural parents”).  But the more pertinent definition, “existing
in or produced by nature : not artificial,” was consistent with Brenner’s
The FDA and FTC haven’t defined “natural,” but that didn’t
make deception implausible; both entities have indicated that misuse of the
term could be deceptive.  The FTC has
taken at least two enforcement actions against cosmetic manufacturers for their
use of “natural” claims because the product contained phenoxyethanol.  While the FTC has said that “natural may be
used in numerous contexts and may convey different meanings depending on that
context,” that just indicates that “natural” doesn’t have a universal meaning
across product categories; it could still have a falsifiable meaning in a given
The court also declined to stay this action under the
primary jurisdiction doctrine.

from Blogger http://ift.tt/2ljMF4E

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s