According to a report by Bloomberg Law, Sephora has defeated the proposed class action alleging products labeled “Clean at Sephora” were deceptively marketed because they contained synthetic or otherwise harmful ingredients.
The decision serves as a reminder that there are competing understandings of clean beauty in today’s cosmetics industry, and that it is important for brands to be transparent with consumers about how they are applying the term."
See related: Class Action Alleges 'Clean at Sephora' Misleads Consumers
Per a communication from Duane Morris, LLP, in New York federal court today (March 15, 2024), Judge David N. Hurd dismissed the complaint, concluding the plaintiff, “failed to plausibly allege that Sephora misled reasonable consumers when it marketed and sold its 'Clean at Sephora’ cosmetics,” or that Sephora "made any explicit or implied promises that its ‘Clean at Sephora’ cosmetics were all-natural and free of any potentially harmful ingredients.”
Kelly Bonner, associate at Duane Morris, LLP, shared her reaction: “I think it was a relatively straightforward decision for the court. The retailer very clearly stated its criteria for inclusion in its clean beauty program — 'formulated without parabens, sulfates SLS and SLES, phthalates, mineral oil, formaldehyde' and other identified ingredients; not 'free from synthetic ingredients.' Simply because the retailer’s criteria for clean beauty differed from plaintiff’s doesn’t make it misleading. It means that currently there are varying definitions of clean beauty.”
Bloomberg noted that the plaintiff’s complaint leaves the court guessing about how a reasonable consumer could mistake the ‘Clean at Sephora’ labeling and/or marketing.
As previously reported, the plaintiff, Lindsey Finster, representing herself and others, alleged that the "Clean at Sephora" program is misleading to consumers and takes advantage of the vague regulations enforced in the cosmetics industry.
Debbie Waite, co-chief executive officer at Steinberg & Associates, shared with C&T: "This is a win for industry. Plaintiffs of late have been trying to impose 'reasonable consumer' meaning for terms that have no legal definition. Sephora does a good job of clearly stating what it (Sephora) means by the term 'clean.' Therefore, no [apparent] intent to deceive occurred. ... Industry can learn from this and continue to strive to provide information that makes it clear what the intent of claims such as 'clean' mean to them."
Bonner added, "Given Finster’s emphasis on the delta between what the retailer expressly communicated versus what the consumer perceived, it remains to be seen what, if any impact, today’s decision will have on the bigger debate over the meaning of clean beauty. Other than that in at least one case, 'clean' beauty meant what the retailer said it meant, and not something else.
"Nevertheless, the decision serves as a reminder that there are competing understandings of clean beauty in today’s cosmetics industry, and that it is important for brands to be transparent with consumers about how they are applying the term."
