HBW Insight is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By


Target, Whole Foods Have Irritated Reactions To ‘Hypoallergenic’ Product Suits

This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet

Executive Summary

The outcomes of proposed class actions against Target Corporation and Whole Foods Market will provide bright signals as to whether plaintiffs have traction in the courts to bring false-advertising suits against “hypoallergenic” cosmetic marketers. The retailers’ motions to dismiss are pending currently.

You may also be interested in...

Target Cruises Past Hypoallergenic Cosmetic Suit, But Other Defendants On Rockier Road

The plaintiff in a proposed class action against Target Corporation for alleged “hypoallergenic” cosmetic fraud neglected to venture a definition for the term and focused to a distracting extent on claims ultimately found to be non-actionable puffery – e.g., “gentle.” Other hypoallergic suits pending around the US are built on sturdier ground and likely will be harder to dismiss.

Plaintiff Digs Deep In Almay Archives For ‘Hypoallergic’ Fraud Evidence

In the absence of FDA regulations, federal courts generally are weighing hypoallergenic false-advertising arguments against the “reasonable consumer” standard, with varying results. However, Almay may have provided a more substantive basis for assessing the truthfulness of its hypoallergenic claims via a letter to FDA on the subject – albeit one from 1973.

J&J Scores Early In ‘Hypoallergenic’ Case; Plaintiff’s Definition ‘Implausible,’ Court Says

A California federal judge is more receptive to J&J’s interpretation of “hypoallergenic” – as a term denoting reduced allergy risk compared with other products – than plaintiffs’ ingredient-based definition. Her ruling on the firm’s motion to dismiss differs sharply from a decision earlier this month in the same district concerning Whole Foods hypoallergenic claims, only adding to legal uncertainty.

Related Content





Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts