1 2 3 6 7 ALEXIS SLATEN, Case No. 23-cv-00409-JSC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION 9 v. TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Re: Dkt. No. 54 Defendant. 11
12 13 Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Defendant Christian Dior Perfumes on the 14 grounds Dior deceptively labels and advertises the sun protection factor (SPF or sunscreen) 15 benefits of certain cosmetic products. (Dkt. No. 49-1.)1 Before the Court is Dior’s motion to 16 dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 54.) Having carefully considered the 17 briefing, and with the benefit of oral argument on October 19, 2023, the Court GRANTS Dior’s 18 motion without leave to amend. Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead Dior’s products’ labels are false 19 or misleading to reasonable consumers because, after referencing the products’ back labels, no 20 reasonable consumer could interpret the front labels’ “24H” representation as applying to the 21 products’ sunscreen. 23 Plaintiff, a California resident, bought Dior’s Forever Foundation from a Macy’s store in 24 Daly City, California for several years. (Dkt. No. 49-1 ¶ 52.) Plaintiff purchased Dior’s Forever 25 Foundation based on the product’s labeling: 26 27 1 =e | Le Bra é 3 | ACOs « , 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 | 1 1 i meh 7 OF a AA ne 12 ee see 13 aaa i Sa ae eben oe == 15 men Nieaal ‘a. Oy atta 16 — ; > = 17
18 Ud. 421.) Based on the label, Plaintiff believed the product would provide cosmetic coverage and 19 sun protection for 24 hours. (Ud. §] 53.) However, the sun protection provided by the Dior Forever 20 || Foundation only lasts for two hours at most. (Ud. 424.) Indeed, the drug facts label on the back of 21 the product’s packaging provides directions to “reapply at least every 2 hours,” though the same 22 || instruction is not printed on the product bottle. Ud. 4 38.) Had Plaintiff known the product would 23 not provide 24-hour sun protection, she would not have purchased the product or, at least, would 24 || have paid less for the product. Ud. 456.) Plaintiff also challenges the sun protection claims on 25 Dior’s Forever Skin Glow Foundation product packaging, which Plaintiff alleges is substantially 26 || and stylistically similar to those made on the Forever Foundation packaging. Ud. § 22.) 28 A plaintiff bringing false labeling claims under California consumer protection laws must
1 adequately allege “members of the public are likely to be deceived.” Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 2 F.3d 958, 965 (9th Cir. 2016). This “reasonable consumer standard requires a probability that a 3 significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in 4 the circumstances, could be misled.” Id. (cleaned up). Drawing all reasonable inferences in 5 Plaintiff’s favor, the Court’s previous order concluded Plaintiff plausibly alleged a reasonable 6 consumer could believe Dior’s Forever Foundation’s sunscreen benefits would last for 24 hours. 7 (Dkt. No. 43 at 6-7.) The order further concluded the drug facts panel on the back label could not, 8 as a matter of law, cure the misleading nature of the front panel. (Id. at 8 (citing Williams v. 9 Gerber Prod. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2008))). After the Court’s ruling, the Ninth Circuit 10 decided McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093 (9th Cir. 2023). Dior argues McGinity 11 mandates dismissal of Plaintiff’s California consumer protection claims. The Court agrees. 12 A. McGinity 13 In Williams v. Gerber Prod. Co., the Ninth Circuit held reasonable consumers “should not 14 be expected to look beyond misleading representations on the front of the box to discover the truth 15 from the ingredient list in small print on the side of the box.” 552 F.3d at 939. However, in 16 McGinity, the Ninth Circuit held that when a front label is ambiguous, the ambiguity can be 17 resolved by reference to the back label. 69 F.4th at 1099. In McGinity, the front label of the 18 defendant’s haircare products contained the words “Nature Fusion.” The court held the meaning 19 of those words to a reasonable consumer was ambiguous.
20 Unlike a label declaring that a product is “100% natural” or “all natural,” the front “Nature Fusion” label does not promise that the 21 product is wholly natural. Although the front label represents that something about the product bears a relationship to nature, the front 22 label does not make any affirmative promise about what proportion of the ingredients are natural. Instead, as the parties point out, 23 “Nature Fusion” could mean any of a number of things: that the products are made with a mixture of natural and synthetic ingredients, 24 that the products are made with a mixture of different natural ingredients, or something else entirely. 25 26 Id. at 1098. Since the front label “could mean any number of things,” some of which would not be 27 misleading, the court turned to the drug label on the back of the products to resolve the front 1 The back labels of the Nature Fusion shampoo and conditioner contain the phrases “Smoothness Inspired by Nature” and 2 “NatureFusion® Smoothing System With Avocado Oil.” Upon seeing the back labels, it would be clear to a reasonable consumer that 3 the avocado oil is the natural ingredient emphasized in P&G’s labeling and marketing. The ingredients list, which McGinity alleges 4 includes many ingredients that are synthetic and that a reasonable consumer would not think are natural, clarifies that the rest of the 5 ingredients are artificial and that the products thus contain both natural and synthetic ingredients. 6 7 Id. at 1099. Since the front and back labels considered together would not deceive a reasonable 8 consumer, the plaintiff’s California consumer protection claims failed. Id. at 1100. 9 In sum, McGinity holds a product claim is ambiguous if the allegedly deceptive language 10 “could mean any number of things,” some of which would not be deceptive. And if the product 11 claim is ambiguous, a court can consider the product’s entire label, including the side and the 12 back, to determine whether a reasonable consumer would be deceived. But, when a front label is 13 unambiguously misleading, the rest of the label cannot cure the misleading nature of the front 14 label. Id. at 1098. 15 B. The Product’s Front Label Is Ambiguous 16 Dior’s Forever Foundation’s front label is ambiguous as to whether the “24H” 17 representation applies to the cosmetic, that is, the foundation alone, or also to the product’s sun 18 protection benefits. As the Court previously concluded, “24H” might mean both the cosmetic and 19 sun protection benefits last 24 hours. But it could also plausibly mean only the cosmetic benefits 20 last 24 hours. See Zimmerman v. Loreal USA, Inc., 2023 WL 4564552 at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 21 2023) (concluding similar representation on front label—“24H Breathable Texture”—was 22 ambiguous as to whether “24H” applies to product’s sun protection). 23 Plaintiff’s insistence the front label unambiguously misrepresents the product’s sunscreen 24 lasts 24 hours is unpersuasive. If the label touted “with 24H sunscreen,” or “24H sunscreen,” or 25 “24H sunscreen foundation,” it would unambiguously represent the product’s sunscreen benefits 26 last 24 hours. But the label challenged here says: 27 // 1 TRANSFER-PROOF - 24H FOUNDATION HIGH PERFECTION WITH SUNSCREEN 3 BROAD SPECTRUM SPF 15 4 (Dkt. No. 49-1 ¶ 21.) A reasonable consumer could interpret this label as representing the 5 foundation lasts 24 hours and the product also contains sunscreen. 6 Plaintiff’s reliance on Souter v. Edgewell Pers. Care Co. for the proposition the Court 7 cannot pick between competing plausible interpretations is inapposite. 2023 WL 5011747 (9th 8 Cir. Aug. 7, 2023).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 6 7 ALEXIS SLATEN, Case No. 23-cv-00409-JSC
8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION 9 v. TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Re: Dkt. No. 54 Defendant. 11
12 13 Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Defendant Christian Dior Perfumes on the 14 grounds Dior deceptively labels and advertises the sun protection factor (SPF or sunscreen) 15 benefits of certain cosmetic products. (Dkt. No. 49-1.)1 Before the Court is Dior’s motion to 16 dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. No. 54.) Having carefully considered the 17 briefing, and with the benefit of oral argument on October 19, 2023, the Court GRANTS Dior’s 18 motion without leave to amend. Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead Dior’s products’ labels are false 19 or misleading to reasonable consumers because, after referencing the products’ back labels, no 20 reasonable consumer could interpret the front labels’ “24H” representation as applying to the 21 products’ sunscreen. 23 Plaintiff, a California resident, bought Dior’s Forever Foundation from a Macy’s store in 24 Daly City, California for several years. (Dkt. No. 49-1 ¶ 52.) Plaintiff purchased Dior’s Forever 25 Foundation based on the product’s labeling: 26 27 1 =e | Le Bra é 3 | ACOs « , 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 | 1 1 i meh 7 OF a AA ne 12 ee see 13 aaa i Sa ae eben oe == 15 men Nieaal ‘a. Oy atta 16 — ; > = 17
18 Ud. 421.) Based on the label, Plaintiff believed the product would provide cosmetic coverage and 19 sun protection for 24 hours. (Ud. §] 53.) However, the sun protection provided by the Dior Forever 20 || Foundation only lasts for two hours at most. (Ud. 424.) Indeed, the drug facts label on the back of 21 the product’s packaging provides directions to “reapply at least every 2 hours,” though the same 22 || instruction is not printed on the product bottle. Ud. 4 38.) Had Plaintiff known the product would 23 not provide 24-hour sun protection, she would not have purchased the product or, at least, would 24 || have paid less for the product. Ud. 456.) Plaintiff also challenges the sun protection claims on 25 Dior’s Forever Skin Glow Foundation product packaging, which Plaintiff alleges is substantially 26 || and stylistically similar to those made on the Forever Foundation packaging. Ud. § 22.) 28 A plaintiff bringing false labeling claims under California consumer protection laws must
1 adequately allege “members of the public are likely to be deceived.” Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 2 F.3d 958, 965 (9th Cir. 2016). This “reasonable consumer standard requires a probability that a 3 significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in 4 the circumstances, could be misled.” Id. (cleaned up). Drawing all reasonable inferences in 5 Plaintiff’s favor, the Court’s previous order concluded Plaintiff plausibly alleged a reasonable 6 consumer could believe Dior’s Forever Foundation’s sunscreen benefits would last for 24 hours. 7 (Dkt. No. 43 at 6-7.) The order further concluded the drug facts panel on the back label could not, 8 as a matter of law, cure the misleading nature of the front panel. (Id. at 8 (citing Williams v. 9 Gerber Prod. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 939 (9th Cir. 2008))). After the Court’s ruling, the Ninth Circuit 10 decided McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093 (9th Cir. 2023). Dior argues McGinity 11 mandates dismissal of Plaintiff’s California consumer protection claims. The Court agrees. 12 A. McGinity 13 In Williams v. Gerber Prod. Co., the Ninth Circuit held reasonable consumers “should not 14 be expected to look beyond misleading representations on the front of the box to discover the truth 15 from the ingredient list in small print on the side of the box.” 552 F.3d at 939. However, in 16 McGinity, the Ninth Circuit held that when a front label is ambiguous, the ambiguity can be 17 resolved by reference to the back label. 69 F.4th at 1099. In McGinity, the front label of the 18 defendant’s haircare products contained the words “Nature Fusion.” The court held the meaning 19 of those words to a reasonable consumer was ambiguous.
20 Unlike a label declaring that a product is “100% natural” or “all natural,” the front “Nature Fusion” label does not promise that the 21 product is wholly natural. Although the front label represents that something about the product bears a relationship to nature, the front 22 label does not make any affirmative promise about what proportion of the ingredients are natural. Instead, as the parties point out, 23 “Nature Fusion” could mean any of a number of things: that the products are made with a mixture of natural and synthetic ingredients, 24 that the products are made with a mixture of different natural ingredients, or something else entirely. 25 26 Id. at 1098. Since the front label “could mean any number of things,” some of which would not be 27 misleading, the court turned to the drug label on the back of the products to resolve the front 1 The back labels of the Nature Fusion shampoo and conditioner contain the phrases “Smoothness Inspired by Nature” and 2 “NatureFusion® Smoothing System With Avocado Oil.” Upon seeing the back labels, it would be clear to a reasonable consumer that 3 the avocado oil is the natural ingredient emphasized in P&G’s labeling and marketing. The ingredients list, which McGinity alleges 4 includes many ingredients that are synthetic and that a reasonable consumer would not think are natural, clarifies that the rest of the 5 ingredients are artificial and that the products thus contain both natural and synthetic ingredients. 6 7 Id. at 1099. Since the front and back labels considered together would not deceive a reasonable 8 consumer, the plaintiff’s California consumer protection claims failed. Id. at 1100. 9 In sum, McGinity holds a product claim is ambiguous if the allegedly deceptive language 10 “could mean any number of things,” some of which would not be deceptive. And if the product 11 claim is ambiguous, a court can consider the product’s entire label, including the side and the 12 back, to determine whether a reasonable consumer would be deceived. But, when a front label is 13 unambiguously misleading, the rest of the label cannot cure the misleading nature of the front 14 label. Id. at 1098. 15 B. The Product’s Front Label Is Ambiguous 16 Dior’s Forever Foundation’s front label is ambiguous as to whether the “24H” 17 representation applies to the cosmetic, that is, the foundation alone, or also to the product’s sun 18 protection benefits. As the Court previously concluded, “24H” might mean both the cosmetic and 19 sun protection benefits last 24 hours. But it could also plausibly mean only the cosmetic benefits 20 last 24 hours. See Zimmerman v. Loreal USA, Inc., 2023 WL 4564552 at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 17, 21 2023) (concluding similar representation on front label—“24H Breathable Texture”—was 22 ambiguous as to whether “24H” applies to product’s sun protection). 23 Plaintiff’s insistence the front label unambiguously misrepresents the product’s sunscreen 24 lasts 24 hours is unpersuasive. If the label touted “with 24H sunscreen,” or “24H sunscreen,” or 25 “24H sunscreen foundation,” it would unambiguously represent the product’s sunscreen benefits 26 last 24 hours. But the label challenged here says: 27 // 1 TRANSFER-PROOF - 24H FOUNDATION HIGH PERFECTION WITH SUNSCREEN 3 BROAD SPECTRUM SPF 15 4 (Dkt. No. 49-1 ¶ 21.) A reasonable consumer could interpret this label as representing the 5 foundation lasts 24 hours and the product also contains sunscreen. 6 Plaintiff’s reliance on Souter v. Edgewell Pers. Care Co. for the proposition the Court 7 cannot pick between competing plausible interpretations is inapposite. 2023 WL 5011747 (9th 8 Cir. Aug. 7, 2023). In Souter, the district court erroneously rejected the plaintiff’s plausible 9 interpretation in favor of the defendant’s plausible interpretation. Id. at *2. Here, in contrast, the 10 Court accepts Plaintiff’s plausible interpretation, but recognizes the ambiguity created by another 11 plausible interpretation. Indeed, Souter supports a finding of ambiguity here. In Souter, the Ninth 12 Circuit held a label advertising wipes “Kill 99.99% of Germs” is ambiguous. Id. at *1. Although, 13 drawing all inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, a reasonable consumer could interpret the germ 14 representation as meaning the wipes kill all germs, the label was ambiguous because it failed to 15 clarify whether the wipes kill “‘99.99%’ of germ species or 99.99% of individual germs found on 16 the hands at the time of application.” Id. at *1. The same result applies here. While a reasonable 17 consumer could interpret “24H” as applying to the product’s cosmetic and sun protection benefits, 18 the front label itself does not clarify whether “24H” applies just to the cosmetic effects or to both 19 the cosmetic and sun protection benefits. So, the label is ambiguous. 20 Plaintiff’s insistence the Court can only consider Plaintiff’s plausible interpretation on a 21 12(b)(6) motion is contradicted by Souter and McGinity. In Souter, the plaintiff alleged the “kills 22 99.99 percent of germs” representation was false because the wipes are ineffective against certain 23 germs found on hands. Souter v. Edgewell Personal Care Co., 2022 WL 4088614 at *1 (S.D. Cal. 24 Sep. 6, 2022). Yet, in reviewing the ruling on the 12(b)(6) motion, the Ninth Circuit held the 25 representation was ambiguous because the 99.99% germs could be understood to refer to germs on 26 the hands at the time of application. 2023 WL 5011747 at *1. That interpretation was not urged 27 by the plaintiff. So, the Ninth Circuit did not limit its review to the plaintiff’s plausible 1 defendant’s packaging represents the product contains only natural ingredients. 69 F.4th at 1096. 2 The court then held the label was ambiguous because it could mean any number of things, 3 including the plaintiff’s urged inference it contains only natural ingredients. Id. at 1098 (reasoning 4 the representation could mean “the products are made with a mixture of different natural 5 ingredients”). Because a reasonable consumer could interpret the label as the plaintiff urged, but 6 also as the defendant urged, the court held the label was ambiguous. Id. The Ninth Circuit did not 7 limit its analysis to the plaintiff’s alleged interpretation. 8 C. The Product’s Back Label Cures the Front Label’s Ambiguity 9 The drug facts panel on the back of Dior’s Forever Foundation reads:
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 [eye W [4 rTM gle Ce ad Og Oo Ra ead 3 DD all iP). poder 4 Ut Matcileism eta ces nO 5 | Midtkcel-rnelie Gem me ulcmctt Lp 6 PCa MMU □□□ Ca Ue (eleretetetS □□□ mdis) 0) SS Clee Ue UE 7 ESCs Ne ere(0 1-106) UToIU Lg 8 ETE mye Te) SESS Meas CCH RSIAULE 10 ATR Uaioe) cecelt (eae cclelemel ll ecm als en ON Cuule es ro) (0) =me- Lilt ek ar Melee ea eee 12 Mosel ee) □□ ele Me) Meio 5 2B (ey re Reels □□ -tel(er-| helmet (ne SOMO tele elela) □□□ tecl Na ae el ee tase) Malle) s)cclIN AM Ro ga) ATE] Cexow 0) 10) CoRSIH 16 Be vesicce eee □□□ aia eer il Beene ce comenecnesen in 1 Rel@sy er sep nae) oC Ml Ccmeslsleiire( (Ire 19 UM □□□ Te OU 0) Ld Ue eee) CLUE MO cleccr-ls ATS) □□□ soars Ma (ers) RY TILE 21 HOWE reel betel clerelie SLUT Ce) □□□ nelle) 22 MULT MAM Ulcaest La at ehs19]<10 ied 23 Lena Yi AUR ere MLO) Are brs) clent = Msi TT HCP v= 10) MMT = 0S 24 Nite etscisssh : Ol]@CMIATO)A ers 26
28 mils: elim
1 (Dkt. No. 54-4 at 2.) 2 Because the front label is ambiguous, the question under McGinity is whether a reasonable 3 consumer could interpret the “24H” representation as applying to the product’s sun protection 4 benefits after referencing the product’s back label. 69 F.4th at 1099. The back label identifies 5 sunscreen as the purpose of the product’s active ingredients and directs users to “[r]eapply at least 6 every 2 hours.” (Dkt. No. 54-4 at 2.) Thus, the front label’s ambiguity is resolved by reference to 7 the back label: the “24H” representation is unrelated to the product’s sun protection benefits, and 8 consumers using the product as sunscreen should reapply the product at least every 2 hours. After 9 referencing the back label, no reasonable consumer would believe the “24H” representation 10 applies to the sun protection benefits of Dior’s Forever Foundation. Instead, “[u]pon seeing the 11 back label[], it would be clear to a reasonable consumer” the product’s sunscreen will only last, at 12 most, two hours. McGinity, 69 F.4th at 1099. 13 * * * 14 Dior’s Forever Foundation’s front label is ambiguous as to whether the “24H” 15 representation applies to the product’s sunscreen. The product’s back label resolves the ambiguity 16 by directing consumers using the product as sunscreen to reapply the product at least every two 17 hours. Because the back label resolves the front label’s ambiguity such that no reasonable 18 consumer could interpret the front label’s “24H” representation as applying to the product’s 19 sunscreen, Plaintiff fails to plausibly plead Dior’s Forever Foundation’s labels are false or 20 misleading to reasonable consumers. Accordingly, Dior’s motion to dismiss on this basis is 22 D. Other Products 23 Plaintiff alleges Dior’s Forever Skin Glow Foundation, which she did not buy, 24 “predominately, uniformly, and consistently include[s], on the principal display panel of the 25 product boxes and bottles, an SPF claim alongside a claim that the product[] last[s] longer than 26 two hours.” (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 20.) The product’s front label reads:
27 24H WEAR RADIANT FOUNDATION WITH SUNSCREEN 1 BROAD SPECTRUM SPF 15 2 |} (Dkt. No. 49-1 921.) The pertinent part of the product’s back label is the same as Dior’s Forever 3 Foundation’s back label. (Dkt. Nos. 54-4 at 2, 54-5 at 2.) 4 “[A] plaintiff may have standing to assert claims for unnamed class members based on 5 products he or she did not purchase so long as the products and alleged misrepresentations are 6 substantially similar.” Miller v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 912 F. Supp. 2d 861, 869 (N.D. 7 Cal. 2012). “Although the Ninth Circuit has not directly addressed ‘substantial similarity’ for 8 || purposes of consumer fraud-based class actions, district courts, driven by Armstrong, have taken a 9 broad approach.” Cimoli v. Alacer Corp., 546 F. Supp. 3d 897, 907 (N.D. Cal. 2021); see 10 || Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849, 867 (9th Cir. 2001). 11 “Consider[ing] the similarity of the claims and injuries flowing from the 12 || misrepresentations on each product,” Cimoli, 546 F. Supp. 3d at 908, Dior’s Forever Skin Glow 5 13 product is substantially similar to the Forever Foundation product Plaintiff bought. Plaintiff 14 alleges both products represent they will provide sun protection for longer than two hours. (DKkt. 3 15 || No. 49-1 9 21.) Under Plaintiff’s theory of misrepresentation, the products are substantially a 16 similar. Thus, Plaintiff has standing to assert class claims based on both products. Finding no 3 17 material distinction between the labeling of the two products, the above analysis applies to both 18 || the Dior Forever Foundation and Dior Forever Skin Glow Foundation. 20 Accordingly, Dior’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. Because McGinity was decided 21 after the filing of the First Amended Complaint, the Court grants Plaintiff leave to amend. Any 22 amended complaint must be filed within 20 days of the date of this Order. 23 This Order disposes of Docket No. 54. 25 Dated: October 19, 2023
27 ne 28 ACWELINE SCOTT CORLE United States District Judge