Are ‘Natural’ Claims Equivalent To ‘All Natural’? Tarte’s $1.7m Settlement Offers Little Instruction
Tarte admits no wrongdoing in its settlement with nationwide purchasers of its “high performance naturals,” and it put up little fight in order to minimize costs. Insight remains limited as to whether federal courts agree with plaintiffs that general “natural” claims on cosmetic products – as opposed to “all natural” or “100% natural” assertions – mean no synthetic ingredients at all.
You may also be interested in...
Locke Lord senior counsel Sharon Blinkoff shares perspective from her experience defending smaller cosmetics companies against US class action plaintiff demands and litigation.
Plaintiffs take aim at Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline in California federal court for “natural” ChapStick claims, while Sanofi US is defending the naturalness of Selsun Blue Naturals Antidandruff Shampoo in New York’s Eastern District.
Tom's natural claims on toothpastes and deodorants are false and misleading, a plaintiff alleges in a proposed class action filed in Massachusetts federal court. Similar to previous complaints against Colgate/Tom’s, the plaintiff’s case is premised on the contention that “natural,” as opposed to “100% natural,” means no synthetic ingredients.