Photo by Veronica Benavides on Unsplash
Lawsuits against Tom’s of Maine (Tom’s) and Colgate-Palmolive Co. (Colgate), the parent company of Tom’s, have made news of late and raise concerns over representations about “natural” products on package labeling.
In Munsell v. Colgate-Palmolive and Tom’s of Maine, a putative class action, Angela Munsell, a resident of Pawtucket, RI and a previous resident of Taunton, MA, alleges that Tom’s and Colgate (Defendants) committed unfair and deceptive trade practices in violation of the consumer protection laws of Massachusetts and Rhode Island by falsely and misleadingly representing Tom’s toothpaste and deodorant products as “natural,” despite the products containing artificial, synthetic, and/or chemically processed ingredients (namely, xylitol, sodium lauryl sulfate, glycerin, propylene glycol, xanthum gum, sorbitol, ascorbic acid, and aluminum chlorohydrate). Plaintiff alleges that she and other consumers were deceived into paying a premium for Defendants’ products on the basis of package labeling that read “natural” and “what’s inside matters” and displayed a description of what makes a product “natural and good.” Plaintiff seeks restitution, including disgorgement of profits from the sale of Tom’s products as a result of any violations of law, an injunction against Defendants from using false and deceptive marketing, branding, and advertising to describe Tom’s products as “natural,” and further monetary damages, including treble damages (MA class), punitive damages (RI class), and statutory damages (MA and RI classes). On May 20, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied Tom’s and Colgate’s motion to dismiss the complaint.
In denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court in Munsell ruled, among other things, that: 1) Plaintiff had alleged sufficient facts that, taken as true, state a claim for violation of Chapter 93A (unfair or deceptive trade practices); 2) Plaintiff met the heightened pleading requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b), which requires a party to state with particularity, the circumstances constituting the fraud or mistake (i.e., the who, what, where, and when of the alleged misrepresentation]; and 3) Plaintiff may pursue its claims against Colgate as Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim that Colgate acquired an 84% stake in Tom’s in 2006 for the specific purpose of selling “natural” products and uses Tom’s, its subsidiary, to promote misrepresentation through deceptive advertising.
In another proposed class action, Coburn v. Tom’s of Maine, filed on June 8, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Susan Coburn alleges that she and other similarly-situated consumers in California and nationwide were enticed to purchase Tom’s toothpaste products at premium prices, based upon Tom’s representations on its packaging and corporate website that the products were “all natural” and without artificial ingredients. Plaintiff alleges that Tom’s violated California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CA Civil Code § 1750, et seq.) and Business & Professions Code (§§ 17200, et seq. and §§ 17500, et seq.) by labeling and advertising “natural” products that were not natural, misrepresenting the quality of the products, and creating consumer confusion regarding the word “natural” in the sale of its toothpaste. For relief, Plaintiff seeks consumer refunds, disgorgement of company revenue from the sale of the products to consumers that cannot be identified, and an injunction barring misleading advertising of the toothpaste products.
Companies who offer products labeled as “natural” should keep an eye on these pending lawsuits to see how courts handle the issue of natural product labeling.
[View source.]
