Case 5:22-cv-01988 Document 1 Filed 11/10/22 Page 1 of 43 Page ID #:1
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`Ryan J. Clarkson (SBN 257074)
`rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
`Katherine A. Bruce (SBN 288694)
`kbruce@clarksonlawfirm.com
`Kelsey J. Elling (SBN 337915)
`kelling@clarksonlawfirm.com
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`Malibu, CA 90265
`Tel: (213) 788-4050
`Fax: (213) 788-4070
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
`Michael Crosner (SBN 41299)
`mike@crosnerlegal.com
`Zachary Crosner (SBN 272295)
`zach@crosnerlegal.com
`Chad Saunders (SBN 257810)
`chad@crosnerlegal.com
`Craig W. Straub (SBN 249032)
`craig@crosnerlegal.com
`9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301
`Beverly Hills, CA 90210
`Tel. (310) 496-5818
`Fac. (310) 510-6429
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SUMMER WHITESIDE, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`KIMBERLY-CLARK CORP.,
`Defendant.
`
`5:22-cv-01988
`Case No.:
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`1. Violation of Unfair Competition Law
`(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et
`seq.)
`2. Violation of False Advertising Law
`(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et
`seq.)
`3. Violation of Consumers Legal
`Remedies Act (Cal. Civ. Code §§
`1750, et seq.)
`4. Breach of Warranty
`5. Unjust Enrichment
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. | 22525 Pacific Coast Highway | Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01988 Document 1 Filed 11/10/22 Page 2 of 43 Page ID #:2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`V.
`
`Page No.
`COMPLAINT ..................................................................................................................................... 1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1
`II.
`JURISDICTION ....................................................................................................................... 5
`III. VENUE ..................................................................................................................................... 5
`IV. PARTIES .................................................................................................................................. 5
`A.
`Plaintiff ......................................................................................................................... 5
`B.
`Defendant ...................................................................................................................... 7
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`Market and Regulatory Background ............................................................................. 7
`B.
`Defendant’s Brand Strategy ........................................................................................ 10
`C.
`Falsity of the Challenged Representations .................................................................. 11
`D.
`Plaintiff and Reasonable Consumers Were Misled by the Challenged
`Representations into Buying the Products, to Their Detriment, Consistent with
`Defendant’s Deliberate Marketing Scheme to Exact a Premium for the Falsely
`Advertised Products .................................................................................................... 14
`The Products are Substantially Similar ....................................................................... 18
`E.
`No Adequate Remedy at Law ..................................................................................... 18
`F.
`VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ....................................................................................... 20
`CAUSES OF ACTION ..................................................................................................................... 24
`COUNT ONE.......................................................................................................................... 24
`A.
`“Unfair” Prong ................................................................................................ 27
`B.
`“Fraudulent” Prong ......................................................................................... 28
`C.
`“Unlawful” Prong ........................................................................................... 29
`COUNT TWO ......................................................................................................................... 31
`COUNT THREE ..................................................................................................................... 32
`COUNT FOUR ....................................................................................................................... 35
`i
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. | 22525 Pacific Coast Highway | Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01988 Document 1 Filed 11/10/22 Page 3 of 43 Page ID #:3
`
`
`COUNT FIVE ......................................................................................................................... 36
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................................... 38
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ......................................................................................................... 40
`
`
`
`ii
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. | 22525 Pacific Coast Highway | Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01988 Document 1 Filed 11/10/22 Page 4 of 43 Page ID #:4
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`Plaintiff Summer Whiteside (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others
`1.
`similarly situated, as more fully described herein (the “Class” and/or “Class Members”), brings
`this class action against Defendant Kimberly-Clark Corp. (“Defendant” and or “Kimberly-
`Clark”), and alleges the following based upon information and belief, unless otherwise expressly
`stated as based upon personal knowledge.
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`Synopsis. In an effort to increase profits and to obtain an unfair advantage over its
`2.
`lawfully acting competitors, Defendant falsely and misleadingly labels certain of its Huggies brand
`wipe products with the following claims: “Plant-based wipes” and “natural care” deliberately
`leading reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff, to incorrectly believe that the Products are
`composed of only water, natural ingredients, and ingredients that come from plants and that have
`not undergone substantial processing (hereinafter, “Plant-Based Representation,” and/or
`“Natural Care Representation,” and/or “Challenged Representations”). Defendant reinforces
`the Challenged Representations on the Products’ packaging by displaying images of plants,
`including leaves and trees, and by using green/blue coloring, further perpetuating the notion that the
`Products are natural and plant-based. Fair and accurate depictions of the Products’ top-facing labels
`or packaging (Huggies Natural Care® Baby Wipes (Sensitive) and Huggies Natural Care® Baby
`Wipes (Refreshing)), are depicted below with the Challenged Representations circled in red.
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`1
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. | 22525 Pacific Coast Highway | Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01988 Document 1 Filed 11/10/22 Page 5 of 43 Page ID #:5
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
` Huggies Natural Care® Baby Wipes (Sensitive, 56 Count—Original Packaging) (Exhibit 1-1A):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(see also Huggies Natural Care® Baby Wipes (Sensitive), Exhibit 1-1A to 1-1M); and
`Huggies Natural Care® Baby Wipes (Refreshing, 56 Count—Original Packaging) (Exhibit 1-2A):
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(see also Huggies Natural Care® Baby Wipes (Refreshing), Exhibit 1-2A to 1-2M.
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. | 22525 Pacific Coast Highway | Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01988 Document 1 Filed 11/10/22 Page 6 of 43 Page ID #:6
`
`
`the Challenged Representations. The Challenged
`The Deception of
`3.
`Representations have misled reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff, into believing the Products
`only contain water, natural ingredients, and ingredients that come from plants and that are not
`subject to chemical modification or processing. However, contrary to the labeling, the Products
`contain numerous ingredients that are not natural and do not come from plants whatsoever,
`including artificial or synthetic ingredients. In addition to the synthetic ingredients that are not plant-
`based and not natural, the Products contain numerous ingredients that have been subjected to
`chemical modification or processing. These ingredients are subjected to substantial chemical
`modification and processing, such that the resulting ingredient used in the Products is a synthetically
`created ingredient. Through falsely, misleadingly, and deceptively labeling and advertising the
`Products, Defendant sought to take advantage of consumers’ desire, perceived value, and
`willingness to pay more for plant-based and natural products as consumers view such products to
`be natural and therefore healthier, safer, and more environmentally conservative than non-natural,
`non-plant-based products. In this way, Defendant has charged consumers a premium for non-plant-
`based and non-natural products falsely advertised and warranted as “plant-based” and “natural,”
`while cutting costs and reaping the financial benefits of utilizing cheaper- and easier-to-procure
`ingredients that are not water and either do not come from plants or were artificially created,
`synthesized, or subjected to substantial processing. Defendant has done so at the expense of
`unwitting consumers, as well as Defendant’s lawfully acting competitors, over whom Defendant
`maintains an unfair competitive advantage. Accordingly, Defendant’s Plant-Based and Natural Care
`Representations are misleading and deceptive, and therefore unlawful.
`Products. The Products at issue are the Huggies Natural Care® brand baby wipes
`4.
`sold to consumers in the United States that contain the Challenged Representations on the front
`labels and/or packaging, regardless of the Products’ size or variations—such as wipe count or type
`of packaging (e.g., original packaging or Disney packaging) (collectively referred to herein and
`throughout this complaint as the “Products”), which include, but not necessarily limited to, the
`following products:
`
`3
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. | 22525 Pacific Coast Highway | Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01988 Document 1 Filed 11/10/22 Page 7 of 43 Page ID #:7
`
`
`a. Huggies Natural Care® Baby Wipes (Sensitive), in all variations or packaging types
`(Original or Disney) and in all sizes (including, but not limited to, 56 count, 168 count,
`184 count, 288 count, 352 count, 488 count, 528 count, 560 count, 624 count, 960
`count, and 1088 count). See Exhibit 1-1A to 1-1M [Product Images for Huggies
`Natural Care® Baby Wipes (Sensitive)]; and
`b. Huggies Natural Care® Baby Wipes (Refreshing), in all variations or packaging
`types (Original or Disney) and in all sizes (including, but not limited to, 56 count, 168
`count, 184 count, 288 count, 352 count, 488 count, 528 count, 560 count, 624 count,
`960 count, and 1088 count). See Exhibit 1- 2A to 1-2M [Product Images for Huggies
`Natural Care® Baby Wipes (Refreshing)].
`Primary Dual Objectives. Plaintiff brings this action, individually and in a
`5.
`representative capacity on behalf of those similarly situated consumers who purchased the Products
`during the relevant Class Period (Class and/or Subclass defined infra), for dual primary objectives:
`One, Plaintiff seeks, on Plaintiff’s individual behalf and on behalf of the Class/Subclass, a monetary
`recovery of the price premium Plaintiff and consumers overpaid for Products that should, but fail
`to, comport with the Challenged Representations (which may include, for example, damages,
`restitution, disgorgement, and/or any applicable penalties, fines, or punitive/exemplary damages)
`solely to the extent that the causes of action pled herein permit such recovery. Two, Plaintiff seeks,
`on her individual behalf and on behalf of the Class/Subclass, injunctive relief to stop Defendant’s
`unlawful manufacture, marketing, and sale of the Products with the Challenged Representations to
`avoid or mitigate the risk of deceiving the public into believing that the Products conform to the
`Challenged Representations, by requiring Defendant to change its business practices, which may
`include one or more of the following: removal or modification of the Challenged Representations
`from the Products’ labels and/or packaging, removal or modification of the Challenged
`Representations from the Products’ advertising, modification of the Product’s formulation be it a
`change in ingredients or their sourcing and manufacturing processes, and/or discontinuance of the
`Product’s manufacture, marketing, and/or sale.
`
`4
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. | 22525 Pacific Coast Highway | Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01988 Document 1 Filed 11/10/22 Page 8 of 43 Page ID #:8
`
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION
`This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Class Action
`6.
`Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), because the proposed Class consists of 100 or more
`members; the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of costs and interest; and
`minimal diversity exists. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`III. VENUE
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial part of
`7.
`the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this District. Plaintiff purchased
`the unlawful Products in this District, and Defendant has deliberately marketed, advertised, and sold
`the Products within this District using the Challenged Representations.
`PARTIES
`IV.
`Plaintiff
`A.
`Plaintiff Summer Whiteside. The following is alleged based upon Plaintiff
`8.
`Whiteside’s personal knowledge:
`
`a. Residence. Plaintiff is a resident of Murrieta, California.
`
`b. Purchase Details. Plaintiff purchased Huggies Natural Care® Baby Wipes
`(Sensitive) on several occasions, including in the fall/winter of 2021 at a Target
`retail store in Murrieta, California and the Huggies Natural Care® Baby Wipes
`(Refreshing) during the Class Period at a Target retail store in Murrieta,
`California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`c. Reliance on Challenged Representations. In making the purchase, Plaintiff read
`the Challenged Representations on the Product’s labels and packaging, leading
`Plaintiff to believe that the Product was plant-based and natural—i.e., the Product
`was composed of water and only ingredients that were natural and come from
`plants, which are neither artificial, synthetic, or highly processed.
`
`d. No Actual Knowledge of Falsity. At the time of purchase, Plaintiff did not know
`that the Challenged Representations were false in that Plaintiff did not know that
`the Products were not actually natural and not plant-based—i.e., Plaintiff did not
`know that the Products’ were not composed entirely of water and plant and natural
`ingredients, but instead included ingredients that were not water, were not natural,
`and did not come from plants because they are artificial, synthetic, and highly
`processed.
`
`5
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. | 22525 Pacific Coast Highway | Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01988 Document 1 Filed 11/10/22 Page 9 of 43 Page ID #:9
`
`
`e. No Notice of Contradictions. Plaintiff did not notice any disclaimer, qualifier, or
`other explanatory statement or information on the Products’ labels or packaging
`that contradicted the prominent Challenged Representations or otherwise
`suggested that the Products were not, in fact, plant-based and natural and therefore
`did, in fact, contain ingredients that were not water, not plant-based, and were
`artificial, synthetic, or highly processed.
`
`f. Causation/Damages. Plaintiff would not have purchased the Products or would
`not have paid as much for the Products, had Plaintiff known that they were not
`plant-based and not natural—i.e., that the Products were not composed entirely of
`water and natural and plant ingredients, but instead contained ingredients that
`were not water and were artificial, synthetic, and/or highly processed.
`
`g. Desire to Repurchase. Plaintiff continues to see the Products available for
`purchase and desires to purchase them again if the Challenged Representations
`were in fact true.
`
`h. Lack of Personal Knowledge/Expertise to Determine Truth. Plaintiff does not
`personally know what ingredients are actually contained in the Products or the
`methods used to make the Products (including sourcing and manufacturing
`processes), and Plaintiff does not possess any specialized knowledge or general
`familiarity with the Products’ ingredients or the methods typically used to obtain
`or make such ingredients (including sourcing and manufacturing processes), such
`that Plaintiff does not personally know and cannot determine whether the
`Products’ ingredients: (a) come from plants or some other raw materials, (b) are
`naturally harvested or artificially created or synthesized, or (c) have undergone
`substantial synthetic processing; and, therefore, Plaintiff has no way of
`determining whether the Challenged Representations on the Products are true.
`
`i. Inability to Rely. Plaintiff is, and continues to be, unable to rely on the truth of
`the Challenged Representations on the Products’ labels.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Future Harm. Defendant continues to market and sell the Products with
`9.
`the Challenged Representations. Plaintiff would like to purchase the Products in the future if they
`lived up to and conformed with the Challenged Representations. However, Plaintiff is an average
`consumer who is not sophisticated in the chemistry, manufacturing, and formulation of personal
`care products, such as the Products. Indeed, Plaintiff does not have any personal knowledge
`regarding the ingredients, or the methods Defendant used to make them (including sourcing and
`manufacturing processes). Thus, Plaintiff cannot accurately differentiate between ingredients that
`are natural and come from plants, as opposed to other ingredients that are synthetic, artificial, and
`highly processed ingredients. Since Plaintiff wants to purchase the Products again to obtain the
`benefits of the Challenged Representations—despite the fact that the Products were once marred by
`
`6
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. | 22525 Pacific Coast Highway | Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01988 Document 1 Filed 11/10/22 Page 10 of 43 Page ID #:10
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`false advertising or warranties—Plaintiff would likely and reasonably, but incorrectly, assume the
`Products are true to and conform with the Challenged Representations on their labels, packaging,
`and Defendant’s advertisements, including Defendant’s websites and social media platforms.
`Accordingly, Plaintiff is at risk of reasonably, but incorrectly, assuming that Defendant has fixed
`the Products’ advertising such that Plaintiff may buy them again, believing they are no longer falsely
`advertised and warranted. In this regard, Plaintiff is currently and in the future deprived of the ability
`to rely on the Challenged Representations in deciding to purchase the Products.
`Defendant
`B.
`Defendant Kimberly-Clark Corp. (“Defendant”) is headquartered and/or
`10.
`maintains a principal place of business in the State of Texas. Defendant was doing business in the
`State of California at all relevant times, including the Class Period. Directly and through its agents,
`Defendant has substantial contacts with and receives substantial benefits and income from and
`through the State of California. Defendant is the owner, manufacturer, marketer, and/or distributor
`of the Products, and created, authorized, and controlled the use of the Challenged Representations
`to market the Products. Defendant and its agents promoted, marketed, and sold the Products at issue
`throughout the United States and, in particular, within this judicial district. The unfair, unlawful,
`deceptive, and misleading Challenged Representations on the Products were prepared, authorized,
`ratified, and/or approved by Defendant and its agents to deceive and mislead consumers in the State
`of California and the United States into purchasing the Products.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`V.
`A. Market and Regulatory Background
`Consumer Demand for Natural and Plant-Based Products. In recent years,
`11.
`consumers have poured billions of dollars into the “plant-based” and “natural” personal care
`market.1 Consumers value natural, plant-based products for their perceived benefits of avoiding
`diseases, attaining health and wellness, helping the environment, assisting local farmers, assisting
`factory workers who would otherwise be exposed to synthetic and hazardous substances, and
`
`1 See generally Plant-Based Personal Care Products, Eternal Spiral Books (Nov. 24, 2018),
`https://eternalspiralbooks.com/plant-based-personal-care-products/ (last accessed October 19,
`2022).
`
`7
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. | 22525 Pacific Coast Highway | Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01988 Document 1 Filed 11/10/22 Page 11 of 43 Page ID #:11
`
`
`financially supporting the companies that share these values. 2 As such, there is a recognized
`association among consumers and the concept of nature (e.g., “natural” and “plant-based” products)
`and positive feelings associated with nature. Peer-reviewed published research has found that the
`perceived naturalness of a product is “very important” to consumers.3 In response to consumers’
`desire for plant-based and natural products, many companies, including Defendant, have scrambled
`to manufacture, market, and sell purportedly “plant-based” and “natural” products in an effort to
`gain market share. Unfortunately, rather than creating the plant-based and natural products
`consumers desire, Defendant has instead chosen to “greenwash” the Products and market them
`through deceptive labeling and advertising (i.e., the Challenged Representations) to convince
`consumers the Products are natural and plant-based when, in reality, they contain numerous
`synthetic, artificial, and highly processed ingredients.
`FTC Guidelines.
`12.
`a. In response to this consumer fraud, the United States Federal Trade Commission
`(“FTC”) created the “Green Guides” to help companies avoid making misleading
`and deceptive claims.4 As relevant here, the FTC stated:
`
`
`
`for
`responsible
`are
`nevertheless,
`Marketers,
`substantiating consumers’ reasonable understanding of
`“biobased,” and other similar claims, such as “plant-
`based,” in the context of their advertisements.
`16 C.F.R. § 260 – Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, p.
`246. 5 Here, Defendant disregarded FTC guidelines on “Plant-Based” claims,
`opting to manufacture the Products with ingredients that are neither water nor
`plant, and at times entirely artificial, synthetic, or substantially processed. Thus,
`Defendant did not fulfill its responsibility to “substantiat[e] consumers’
`reasonable understanding of . . . ‘plant-based’” advertising claims as reasonable
`
`
`
`2 Id.
`3 S. Roman et al., The importance of food naturalness for consumers: Results of a systematic
`review, Trends in Food Science & Technology (2017) 67:44-57.
`4 See generally 16 C.F.R. § 260 – Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims.
`5 Available at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-issues-revised-
`green-guides/greenguidesstatement.pdf (emphasis added).
`8
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. | 22525 Pacific Coast Highway | Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01988 Document 1 Filed 11/10/22 Page 12 of 43 Page ID #:12
`
`
`13.
`
`consumers, such as Plaintiff, reasonably believe that “plant-based” Products only
`contain water or plant ingredients that have not undergone substantial processing.
`b. The FTC has also cautioned “[m]arketers that are using terms such as natural
`must ensure that they can substantiate whatever claims they are conveying to
`reasonable consumers. If reasonable consumers could interpret a natural claim as
`representing that a product contains no artificial ingredients, that the marketer
`must be able to substantiate that fact.” Guides for the Use of Environmental
`Marketing Claims, 75 FR 63552-01, 63586 (Oct. 15, 2010).
`Definitions.
`a. Dictionary: Plant-Based. The Merriam-Webster standard dictionary defines
`“plant-based” as “made or derived from plants” and “consisting primarily or
`entirely of food (such as vegetables, fruits, nuts, oils, and beans) derived from
`plants.”6
`b. Dictionary: Natural. The Merriam-Webster standard dictionary defines
`“natural” as “existing in or produced by nature: not artificial,” and “not having
`any extra substances or chemicals added: not containing anything artificial.”7
`c. Synthetic. “The term ‘synthetic’ means a substance that is formulated or
`manufactured by a chemical process or by a process that chemically changes a
`substance extracted from naturally occurring plant, animal, or mineral sources[.]”
`7 U.S.C. § 6502 (21).
`d. Dictionary: Artificial. The Merriam-Webster standard dictionary defines
`“artificial” as “humanly contrived” and “MAN-MADE.”8
`
`
`6Merriam-Webster.com, plant-based, available at https://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/plant-based (accessed 11/3/2022).
`7 Merriam-Webster.com, natural, available at https://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/natural (accessed 11/3/2022).
`8 Merriam-Webster.com, artificial, available at https://www.merriam-
`webster.com/dictionary/artificial (accessed 11/3/2022).
`9
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. | 22525 Pacific Coast Highway | Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01988 Document 1 Filed 11/10/22 Page 13 of 43 Page ID #:13
`
`
`Consumer Perception. Accordingly, reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, interpret
`14.
`the Plant-Based Representation and the Natural Care Representation to mean that the Products
`contain no non-natural, artificial, and/or synthetic ingredients.
`Defendant’s Brand Strategy
`B.
`Brand Strategy. Defendant deliberately created and executed a brand strategy to
`15.
`distinguish the Huggies Natural Care® brand, company, and the Products at issue in this case, as
`clean, sustainable, and well-designed products that are natural and plant-based. Defendant labels the
`Products’ packaging with the Challenged Representations: “Plant-based wipes” and “natural care.”
`Challenged Representations on Products’ Labels. Defendant falsely and
`16.
`misleadingly labels the Products with the Challenged Representations: “PLANT-BASED WIPES”
`and “Natural Care” as depicted below.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The Challenged Representations on the Products’ packaging is conspicuous and
`17.
`designed to grab the consumer’s attention.
`
`
`a. Product Name. The Challenged Representations are incorporated into the
`Products' name (“Huggies natural care”) and identification as a wipe (“Plant-based
`wipes”), such that consumers will identify the Products according to these
`descriptive features and otherwise uses the Challenged Representations as part of
`the Products’ name. See generally Exhibit 1 [Product Images].
`
`
`
`b. Placement. The Challenged Representations are prominently placed on each of
`the Products’ primary display panel of the front label or packaging, immediatelyt
`underneath the Products’ brand name (“HUGGIES”). See Exhibit 1 [Product
`Images].
`
`c. Repetition. The Challenged Representations are repeatedly used on the sides or
`panels of the Product’s packaging, including the front and side panels. See Exhibit
`1 [Product Images].
`
`10
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. | 22525 Pacific Coast Highway | Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01988 Document 1 Filed 11/10/22 Page 14 of 43 Page ID #:14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`d. Sparsity. The Challenged Representations are not hidden in a sea of information;
`rather, the front and side display panels contain scant information about the
`Products, largely limited to the brand name (Huggies) and a few claims about the
`Products’ attributes (e.g., “Sensitive” and “With Cucumber & Green Tea"). See
`Exhibits 1-2 [Product Images].
`
`e. Typeface. The Challenged Representations stand out from the scant information
`contained on the front panel, prominently displayed with a bold and large
`typeface, clear and legible font, and highly visible black, blue, and green letters
`that starkly contrast with the Products’ background. See Exhibits 1-2 [Product
`Images].
`
`e. Imagery. Defendant uses imagery to reinforce the Challenged Representations.
`The Challenged Representations are alongside an image of plants, including trees
`and leaves. See Exhibits 1-2 [Product Images].
`
`f. Trademarked Logo. Indeed, Defendant trademarked a company logo—
`specifically the Products name, “HUGGIES natural care®,” which is on the front
`and center of the Products’ labeling.
`
`To draw consumers’ attention, the Challenged Representations are prominently
`18.
`displayed in the center of the label; bold typeface; clear; legible; and highly visible green or blue
`font; all of which starkly contrasts with the packaging’s vast white background. Furthermore,
`Defendant includes imagery of plants on the Products’ labeling and packaging (e.g., flowers and
`trees). The net-effect or net-impression on consumers is that the Products contain only natural
`ingredients that come from plants and do not contain ingredients that do not come from plants or
`ingredients that are subject to chemical modification and/or processing. See Exhibit 1 [Product
`Images]; Exhibit 2 [Ingredient Disclosures].
`Falsity of the Challenged Representations
`C.
`The Challenged Representations. Although each of the Products at issue is labeled
`19.
`and advertised with the Natural Care Representation and the Plant-Based Representation, the
`Products are chock full of ingredients that are not water, are not natural, and do not come from
`plants, and, in many instances, are artificially created, synthesized, or highly processed. Exhibit 2
`[Ingredient Disclosures]. Specifically:
`Huggies Natural Care® Baby Wipes (Sensitive), in all packaging types or variations
`a.
`and sizes, contains the following ingredients that are not water, are not natural, and
`11
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Clarkson Law Firm, P.C. | 22525 Pacific Coast Highway | Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 5:22-cv-01988 Document 1 Filed 11/10/22 Page 15 of 43 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`are not plants:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`Butoxy PEG-4 PG-Amodimethicone: Is a polyethlene glycol (PEG). PEGs
`are petroleum-based compounds that are used to enhance skin penetration
`of other chemicals. Butoxy PEG-4 PG-amodimethicone has contamination
`concerns with ethylene