Case 3:21-cv-07669-SK Document 1 Filed 09/30/21 Page 1 of 40
`
`
`
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`Ryan J. Clarkson (SBN 257074)
`rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
`Shireen M. Clarkson (SBN 237882)
`sclarkson@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 Michelle Moran
`
`
`
`
`
`MICHELLE MORAN, individually and on
`behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`vs.
`
`EDGEWELL PERSONAL CARE, LLC
`
`Defendant.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORHTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`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
`
`
`
`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
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07669-SK Document 1 Filed 09/30/21 Page 2 of 40
`
`
`
`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
`
`Page No.
`COMPLAINT ....................................................................................................................................1
`JURISDICTION .................................................................................................................................4
`VENUE ..............................................................................................................................................4
`PARTIES ...........................................................................................................................................4
`A.
`Plaintiff ........................................................................................................................4
`B.
`Defendant .....................................................................................................................5
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS.............................................................................................................6
`A.
`Background ..................................................................................................................6
`B.
`The Products’ Misleading and Deceptive Labeling .....................................................9
`C.
`Plaintiff and Reasonable Consumers Were Misled by the Products ..........................12
`D.
`The Products are Substantially Similar ......................................................................13
`E.
`No Adequate Remedy at Law ....................................................................................14
`CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ................................................................................................17
`COUNT ONE ...................................................................................................................................20
`Violation of California Unfair Competition Law
`(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.)
`A.
`“Unfair” Prong ...........................................................................................................23
`B.
`“Fraudulent” Prong ....................................................................................................25
`C.
`“Unlawful” Prong ......................................................................................................26
`COUNT TWO ..................................................................................................................................27
`Violation of California False Advertising Law
`(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.)
`COUNT THREE ..............................................................................................................................29
`Violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act
`(Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq.)
`
`
`i
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07669-SK Document 1 Filed 09/30/21 Page 3 of 40
`
`
`
`COUNT FOUR ................................................................................................................................32
`Breach of Warranty
`COUNT FIVE ..................................................................................................................................33
`Unjust Enrichment/Restitution
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF ...................................................................................................................35
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ........................................................................................................37
`
`
`
`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
`
`ii
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07669-SK Document 1 Filed 09/30/21 Page 4 of 40
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`Plaintiff Michelle Moran (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others
`1.
`similarly situated, as more fully described herein (the “Class” and “Class Members”), brings this
`class action complaint against Defendant Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC (“Defendant”), and
`alleges the following upon information and belief, unless otherwise expressly stated as based upon
`personal knowledge:
`Synopsis. To obtain an unfair competitive advantage in the billion-dollar sunscreen
`2.
`market, Defendant is exposing consumers and the environment (e.g. coral reefs and marine life) to
`harmful chemical active ingredients in their sunscreens by falsely labeling them as “REEF
`FRIENDLY.” Defendant has reaped millions of dollars through this fraudulent scheme based on a
`calculated business decision to put profits over people and the environment. Specifically, Defendant
`falsely and misleadingly labels certain of its Banana Boat® brand sunscreen products as “REEF
`FRIENDLY” (hereinafter, “Reef Friendly Representation,” “False Advertising Claim” and/or
`“Challenged Representation”). An example of the Challenged Representation is depicted on the
`following page:
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`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
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07669-SK Document 1 Filed 09/30/21 Page 5 of 40
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07669-SK Document 1 Filed 09/30/21 Page 6 of 40
`
`
`
`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
`
`The Challenged Representation has misled reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff,
`3.
`into believing that the Products only contain reef friendly ingredients, in that they only include
`ingredients that do not cause harm to and/or kill coral reefs. However, contrary to this labeling, the
`Products actually contain avobenzone, homoslate, and/or octocrylene, which are chemicals that can
`harm and/or kill coral reefs. Through falsely, misleadingly, and deceptively labeling the Products,
`Defendant sought to take advantage of consumers’ desire for sunscreens that are safe for coral reefs
`and/or the marine life and related ecosystems that depend on them, while reaping the financial
`benefits of using less desirable, harmful, and less costly chemicals in the Products. 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.
`The Products. The products at issue are Banana Boat® brand sunscreens and sun-
`4.
`blocks manufactured and/or marketed by Defendant that contain the Challenged Representation on
`the labels and/or packaging, in all sizes, forms of topical application (stick, paste, lotion, cream,
`spray, or mist), and SPFs, which include, but are not necessarily limited to:
`(1) Banana Boat Sport Ultra Sunscreen Lotion (including SPF 15, 30, and 50+,
`and the 1-, 2-, 3-, 8-, and 12-oz. sizes) (see Exhibit 1A-G [Product Images]);
`(2) Banana Boat Sport Ultra Sunscreen Spray (including SPF 15, 30, 50+, and the
`6- and 12-oz sizes) (see Exhibit 1H-L [Product Images]);
`(3) Banana Boat Sport Ultra Sunscreen Stick (including SPF 50+ and 1.5-oz sizes)
`(see Exhibit 1M [Product Images]);
`(4) Banana Boat Sport Ultra Sunscreen Lotion (Faces) (including SPF 30 and 3-
`oz sizes) (see Exhibit 1N [Product Images]); and
`(5) Banana Boat Sport Coolzone Sunscreen Spray (including SPF 30, 50+ and
`1.8-, 6-, and 12-oz sizes) (see Exhibit 1O-R [Product Images]) (collectively,
`the “Products”).
`Primary Objectives. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of those
`5.
`similarly situated to represent a National Class and a California Subclass of consumers who
`purchased the Products (defined infra). Plaintiff seeks a monetary recovery of the Products’
`3
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07669-SK Document 1 Filed 09/30/21 Page 7 of 40
`
`
`
`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
`
`purchase price and Defendant’s ill-gotten gains, as consistent with permissible law (including, for
`example, damages, restitution, disgorgement, and any applicable penalties/punitive damages).
`Plaintiff further seeks injunctive relief to stop Defendant’s unlawful labeling and advertising of the
`Products and to dispel the public’s misconception caused by the Challenged Representation, by
`enjoining Defendant’s unlawful advertising practices for the benefit of consumers, including the
`Class.
`
`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.
`
`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. In addition,
`Plaintiff purchased the unlawful Products in this District, and Defendants have marketed,
`advertised, and sold the Products within this District.
`PARTIES
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff
`Plaintiff Michelle Moran. The following is alleged based upon personal knowledge:
`8.
`(1) Plaintiff is a resident of San Francisco, California. (2) Plaintiff purchased the Banana Boat Sport
`Ultra Lotion Sunscreen SPF 30 for approximately $9.90 at a CVS Store in San Francisco, California
`in the summer of 2021. (3) In making the purchase, Plaintiff relied on the Reef Friendly
`Representation on the Product’s label. (4) At the time of purchase, Plaintiff did not know that this
`Representation was false, and she believed she was purchasing a sunscreen product that was safe
`for coral reefs in that they did not contain ingredients that can harm coral reefs. (5) Plaintiff would
`not have purchased the Product had she known that the Challenged Representation was false and
`that the Product contained ingredients harmful to coral reefs. (6) Plaintiff continues to see the
`4
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07669-SK Document 1 Filed 09/30/21 Page 8 of 40
`
`
`
`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
`
`Products available for purchase and desires to purchase them again if the Reef Friendly
`Representation were in fact true. (7) Plaintiff is not personally familiar with ingredients in the
`Products and does not possess any specialized knowledge, skill, experience, or education in
`sunscreens, sunscreen ingredients, marine life pollutants, or chemicals hazardous coral reefs and,
`therefore, Plaintiff has no way of determining whether the Challenged Representation on the
`Products is true. (8) Plaintiff is, and continues to be, unable to rely on the truth of the Reef Friendly
`Representation on the Products’ labels.
`Plaintiff’s Future Harm. If the Products indeed contained only ingredients that were
`9.
`actually “Reef Friendly” as labeled and advertised, Plaintiff would purchase the Products again in
`the future, despite the fact that the Products were once marred by false advertising or labeling.
`Therefore, Plaintiff would reasonably, but incorrectly, assume the Products were improved. In that
`regard, Plaintiff is an average consumer who is not sophisticated in marine toxicology or sunscreen
`formulation and does not know the meaning or the import of the Products chemical ingredients.
`Accordingly, Plaintiff is at risk of reasonably, but incorrectly, assuming that Defendant fixed the
`formulation of the Products such that Plaintiff may buy them again, believing they were no longer
`falsely advertised and labeled.
`B. Defendant
`Defendant Edgewell Personal Care LLC (“Edgewell”) is a limited liability
`10.
`company headquartered in Connecticut, with its primary place of business in Shelton, Connecticut,
`and was doing business in the state of California during all relevant times. Directly and through its
`agents, Defendant Edgewell has substantial contacts with and receives substantial benefits and
`income from and through the State of California. Defendant Edgewell is one of the owners,
`manufacturers, and/or distributors of the Products, and is one of the companies that created and/or
`authorized the false, misleading, and deceptive labeling of the Products. Defendant Edgewell and
`its agents promoted, marketed and sold the Products at issue in this jurisdiction and in this judicial
`district. The unfair, unlawful, deceptive, and misleading False Advertising Claims on the Products
`were prepared, authorized, ratified, and/or approved by Defendant Edgewell and its agents, and
`were disseminated throughout California and the nation by Defendant Edgwell and its agents to
`5
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07669-SK Document 1 Filed 09/30/21 Page 9 of 40
`
`
`
`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
`
`deceive and mislead consumers into purchasing the Products.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A. Background
`11. Background. Coral reefs are some of the most diverse ecosystems in the world. Coral
`reefs protect coastlines from storms and erosion, provide jobs for local communities, and offer
`opportunities for recreation.1 Over half a billion people depend on reefs for food, income, and
`protection.2 Additionally, coral reef escosystems are culturally important to people around the
`world.3 Indeed, the world’s largest coral reef is considered to be one of the great seven natural
`wonders of the world due to its scale, beauty, and biodiversity.4 Despite their ecological and cultural
`importance, coral reefs are disappearing at alarming rates.5 In fact, some scientists predict that if
`current trends continue, nearly all coral reefs will disappear over the next twenty to fifty years.6 In
`recent years, consumers have become increasingly concerned about protecting coral reefs through
`individual action, including purchasing reef friendly sunscreen, which is free from chemicals known
`to harm and kill coral reefs. Thus, “Reef Friendly” sunscreens are rapidly increasing in popularity
`due to their perceived positive ecological impact.7
`12. Harmful Chemicals. Avobenzone, homoslate, and octrocrylene (collectively,
`“Harmful Ingredients”) are chemicals that can harm and/or kill coral reefs.
`13. The HEL—Octrocrylene. The Haerecticus Environmental Laboratory (“HEL”) is a
`nonprofit organization that specializes in research and advocacy in a number of areas including
`
`1 “Coral Reef Ecosystems,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
`https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/marine-life/coral-reef-ecosystems (accessed
`September 29, 2021).
`2 Id.
`3 Id.
`4 Id.; “Great Barrier Reef,” WWF [World Wildlife Fund], https://www.wwf.org.au/what-we-
`do/oceans/great-barrier-reef#gs.b5pmtu (accessed Sept. 29, 2021).
`5 Id.
`6 “Nearly All Coral Reefs Will Disappear Over the Next 20 Years, Scientists Say,” Forbes (2020),
`https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevornace/2020/02/24/70-90-percent-of-coral-reefs-will-disappear-
`over-the-next-20-years-scientists-say/?sh=70e461da7d87 (accessed Sept. 29, 2021).
`7 “Reef Safe Sunscreen Guide,” Save
`the Reef, https://savethereef.org/about-reef-save-
`sunscreen.html (last accessed Sept. 29, 2021); “9 Reasons Why You Should Switch to a Reef Safe
`Sunscreen,” Elle.com, https://www.elle.com/beauty/makeup-skin-care/g32685164/best-reef-safe-
`sunscreen/ (accessed Sept. 29, 2021); “How to Know if Your Sunscreen is Killing Coral Reefs –
`and
`the
`Brands
`to
`Try
`Instead,”
`Travel
`and
`Leisure,
`https://www.travelandleisure.com/style/beauty/reef-safe-sunscreen (accessed Sept. 29, 2021).
`6
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07669-SK Document 1 Filed 09/30/21 Page 10 of 40
`
`
`
`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
`
`sunscreens and how their ingredients impact natural environmental habitats. Regarding certain
`harmful ingredients used in sunscreens, the HEL reports that octrocrylene is a chemical that causes
`harm and/or can kill coral reefs and pose a substantial threat to ecosystem health.8
`14. The NOS—Octrocrylene. The National Ocean Service (“NOS”) also advocates
`against the use of certain chemicals, including octocrylene, in the use of sunscreen because of the
`severe negative impact that is has on coral reefs.9 The NOS classifies octrocylene as a threat to coral
`reefs, as well as marine ecosystems.10
`15. The Hawaii Center for Biological Diversity (the “Center”)—Octrocrylene &
`Avobenzone. The Center is petitioning the FDA for a national ban on chemicals, like octocrylene
`and avobenzone, in sunscreens that harm and kill the coral reefs.11 The center is also advocating for
`a statewide ban of octocrylene and avobenzone in sunscreens, noting the toxic impacts these
`chemicals have on the coral reefs and marine life.12
`16. FDA Petition—Octrocrylene. In fact, a larger group of researchers have also
`petitioned the FDA to remove from sale all sunscreens that contain octocrylene.13 Because products
`made with octocrylene may contain benzophenone, a known carcinogen, and is considered to be an
`endocrine, metabolic, and reproductive disruptor.14
`17. Hawaii Legislature—Octrocrylene & Avobenzone. In 2018, state lawmakers
`banned oxybenzone and octinoxate from being included as ingredients in sunscreens sold in Hawaii
`because of their deleterious impact on coral reefs and dependent marine life. In 2021, state
`lawmakers amended the bill to also ban the sale of sunscreens that contain avobenzone and
`
`
`8 “Protect Land + Sea Certification,” Haereticus Environmental Laboratory, http://haereticus-
`lab.org/protect-land-sea-certification-3/ (accessed Sept. 29, 2021).
`9 “Skincare Chemicals and Coral Reefs,” National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
`https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/news/sunscreen-corals.html (accessed Sept. 29, 2021).
`10 Id.
`11 “Hawai’i Senate Bill Bans Harmful Sunscreen Chemicals” Center for Biological Diversity
`(March 9, 2021), https://biologicaldiversity.org/w/news/press-releases/hawaii-senate-bill-bans-
`harmful-sunscreen-chemicals-2021-03-09/ (accessed Sept. 29, 2021).
`12 Id.
`13 Popular sunscreens under scrutiny as scientists cite another potential carcinogen, Los Angeles
`Times
`(Aug. 10, 2021), https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2021-08-10/sunscreen-fda-
`carcinogen-benzophenone-octocrylene-concerns (accessed Sept. 29, 2021).
`14 Id.
`
`7
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07669-SK Document 1 Filed 09/30/21 Page 11 of 40
`
`
`
`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
`
`octocrylene starting in 2023.15 Octocrylene was banned because it can disrupt human hormones and
`has a toxic impact on aquatic ecosystems, including coral reefs.16 Avobenzone was banned because
`it is “an endocrine disruptor and can reduce coral resilience against the high ocean temperatures that
`are killing corals worldwide.”17
`International Bans—Octrocrylene & Homosalate. In June 2019, the US Virgin
`18.
`Islands banned sunscreens containing octocrylene, oxybenzone, and octinoxate, with the ban
`effective beginning March 2020.18 In addition, Palau, Bonaire, and the nature reserve areas in
`Mexico have approved legislation for similar bans, and a similar ban is being discussed in Brazil
`and the EU.19 Furthermore, the European Commission has recently recommended that homosalate
`was not safe to use at certain concentrations and should have a maximum concentration of 1.4
`percent.20 Scientists in the United States have likewise raised concerns about the toxic nature of
`these ingredients, as well as homoslate, and believe they also have a harmful impact on reefs.21
`
`15 “Hawaii Senate Bill 132,” Hawaii State Legislature,
`https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=132&year=2021(a
`ccessed on Sept. 29, 2021).
`16 “Bill would prohibit sale of sunscreen products containing avobenzone and octocrylene,” West
`Hawaii Today (March 10, 2021), https://www.westhawaiitoday.com/2021/03/10/hawaii-news/bill-
`would-prohibit-sale-of-sunscreen-products-containing-avobenzone-and-octocrylene/ (accessed
`Sept. 29, 2021).
`17 Id.
`18 Narla, et. al., “Sunscreen: FDA regulation, and environmental and health impact,” Royal Society
`of Chemistry (Nov. 22, 2019), https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2019/pp/c9pp00366e
`(accessed on Sept. 29, 2021).
`19 Id.
`20 “The Trouble with
`In Sunscreen,” Environmental Working Group,
`Ingredients
`https://www.ewg.org/sunscreen/report/the-trouble-with-sunscreen-chemicals/ (accessed on Sept.
`29, 2021).
`21 Yang, Changwon, et al. “Homosalate Aggravates the Invasion of Human Trophoblast Cells as
`Well as Regulates Intracellular Signaling Pathways Including PI3K/AKT and MAPK Pathways,”
`243 Environmental Pollution 1263-73 (Dec. 2018), https://europepmc.org/article/med/30267922
`(accessed Sept. 29, 2021); Park, Chang-Beom, et al. “Single- and Mixture Toxicity of Three Organic
`UV-Filters, Ethylhexyl Methoxycinnamate, Octocrylene, and Avobenzone on Daphnia Magna.”
`137
`Ecotoxicology
`and
`Environmental
`Safety
`57-63
`(Mar.
`2017),
`https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311425878_Single-
`_and_mixture_toxicity_of_three_organic_UV-
`filters_ethylhexyl_methoxycinnamate_octocrylene_and_avobenzone_on_Daphnia_magna
`(accessed Sept. 29, 2021); McCoshum, Shaun M., et al. “Direct and Indirect Effects of Sunscreen
`Exposure
`for Reef Biota,” 776 Hydrobiologia 139-46
`(Issue no. 1, Aug. 2016),
`https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299423358_Direct_and_indirect_effects_of_sunscreen_
`exposure_for_reef_biota (accessed Sept. 29, 2021); Slijkerman, D. M. E., and M. Keur, “Sunscreen
`Ecoproducts: Product Claims, Potential Effects and Environmental Risks of Applied UV Filters,”
`Wageningen Marine Research
`(2018),
`https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/sunscreen-
`ecoproducts-product-claims-potential-effects-and-enviro (accessed Sept. 29, 2021).
`8
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07669-SK Document 1 Filed 09/30/21 Page 12 of 40
`
`
`
`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
`
`Consumers’ Desire for “Reef Friendly” Sunscreens. Consequently, because of the
`19.
`ecological concerns about these harmful chemicals, consumers have increasingly sought out
`sunscreens that contain only ingredients that are safe for coral reefs. As a result, sales of “Reef
`Friendly” sunscreens have surged in recent years.
`The Products’ Misleading and Deceptive Labeling
`B.
`20. Products. As described supra, Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, labels,
`packages, and sells the Products—Banana Boat® Sport Ultra, Sport Ultra Faces, and Sport
`Coolzone Sunscreens in various topical applications (lotion, spray, stick), SPFs (15, 30, and 50+),
`and sizes (ranging from 1-oz to 12-oz).
`21. Challenged Representations on Products’ Front Labels. Also as described supra,
`Defendant falsely and misleadingly labels the Products with the Reef Friendly Representation. The
`Reef Friendly Representation is found on a blue-green or teal, circular image on each Product’s
`front display panel of the label or packaging. See Exhibit 1 [Product Images]. In the center of the
`circular image, it depicts a coral reef. Id. Along the top edge of the circular image, in prominent all-
`capitals typeface and thick lettering that starkly contrasts with the orange, yellow, and dark navy-
`or royal-blue background, it states: “REEF FRIENDLY.” Id. Defendant reinforces and emphasizes
`the Reef Friendly Representation on each Product with both the picture of a coral reef and its blue-
`green or teal coloring that stands out in comparison to the rest of the label to draw the attention of
`consumers to this False Advertising Claim. Id. The placement of the Challenged Representations
`on the primary display panel of the front labels, as well as the emphasis and deliberate
`conspicuousness of the Challenged Representations, demonstrate the Defendant’s awareness of the
`materiality of these representations, that consumers prefer and are motivated to buy sunscreens that
`are safe for coral reefs and the environment, that the Products contain Harmful Ingredients, and
`therefore the Reef Friendly Representations are likely to mislead the reasonable consumer into
`buying the Products because they believe the Products do not contain ingredients that can harm
`coral reefs.
`22. Consumers’ Reasonably Rely on the Challenged Representation. Based on the
`Challenged Representation, reasonable consumers believe that the Products are safe for coral reefs.
`9
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07669-SK Document 1 Filed 09/30/21 Page 13 of 40
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Put differently, reasonable consumers believe the Products do not contain any ingredients that can
`cause harm to and/or kill coral reefs.
`23. Harmful Chemicals Contained in the Products. However, in spite of their labeling,
`the Products contain Harmful Ingredients, including avobenzone, homoslate, and octorylene, all
`chemicals that cause harm to and/or kill coral reefs. As summarized below, the Products contain the
`following Harmful Ingredients:
`
`Exhibit 1A: Banana Boat Sport Ultra Sunscreen Lotion SPF 15
`• Avobenzone: 2 %
`• Homosalate: 6 %
`• Octocrylene: 3 %
`
`Exhibit 1B-D: Banana Boat Sport Ultra Sunscreen Lotion SPF 30
`• Avobenzone: 2.7 %
`• Homosalate: 6 %
`• Octocrylene: 4.5 %
`Exhibit 1E-G: Banana Boat Sport Ultra Sunscreen Lotion SPF 50
`• Avobenzone: 2.7 %
`• Homosalate: 9 %
`• Octocrylene: 6.5 %
`Exhibit 1H: Banana Boat Sport Ultra Spray Sunscreen SPF 15
`• Avobenzone: 1.6 %
`• Homosalate: 4 %
`• Octocrylene: 4.5 %
`
`Exhibit 1I-J: Banana Boat Sport Ultra Spray Sunscreen SPF 30
`• Avobenzone: 2 %
`• Homosalate: 6 %
`• Octocrylene: 6 %
`
`Exhibit 1K-L: Banana Boat Sport Ultra Spray Sunscreen SPF 50
`• Avobenzone: 2.7 %
`• Homosalate: 9 %
`• Octocrylene: 6 %
`
`Exhibit 1M: Banana Boat Sport Ultra Sunscreen Stick SPF 50
`• Avobenzone: 2.7 %
`• Homosalate: 9 %
`• Octocrylene: 9 %
`
`Exhibit 1N: Banana Boat Sport Ultra Sunscreen Lotion (Faces) SPF 30
`• Avobenzone: 2.7 %
`• Homosalate: 6 %
`• Octocrylene: 4.5 %
`
`Exhibit 1O-P: Banana Boat Sport Spray Sunscreen (Cool Zone) SPF 30
`• Avobenzone: 2 %
`• Homosalate: 6 %
`
`10
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07669-SK Document 1 Filed 09/30/21 Page 14 of 40
`
`
`
`• Octocrylene: 4.5 %
`
`Exhibit 1Q-R: Banana Boat Sport Spray Sunscreen (Cool Zone) SPF 50
`• Avobenzone: 2.7 %
`• Homosalate: 9 %
`• Octocrylene: 7 %
`24. Avobenzone. Avobenzone is typically used in the place of oxybenzone, another
`harmful chemical ingredient. When avobenzone is exposed to ultraviolet light the compound
`degrades and causes damage to coral reefs and aquatic life.22
`25. Octocrylene. Octocrylene produces benzophenone, which is a mutagen, carcinogen,
`and endocrine disruptor.23 It is associated with a wide range of toxicities, including genotoxicity,
`carcinogenicity, and endocrine disruption. Octocrylene has been shown to accumulate in various
`types of aquatic life and cause DNA damage, developmental abnormalities, and adverse
`reproductive effects.24 Bioaccumulation of this chemical leads to endocrine disruption, alteration of
`gene transcription, and developmental toxicity in fish, dolphins, sea urchins, and other marine life.25
`In addition, octocrylene adversely impacts coral reefs, even at low concentrations, by accumulating
`in coral tissue and triggering mitochondrial dysfunction.26
`
`
`22 Ruszkiewicz, Joanna, et al. “Neurotoxic effect of active ingredients in sunscreen products, a
`contemporary review,” PMC, doi: 10.10/16/j.toxrep.2017.05, May 2017,
`https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5615097/#bib0635 (last accessed Sept. 29, 2021).
`23“Octocrylene”
`Environmental
`Working
`Group.
`https://www.ewg.org/skindeep/ingredients/704206-OCTOCRYLENE (last accessed on Sept. 29,
`2021).
`24 Gago-Ferrero, Pablo, et al. “First Determination of UV Filters in Marine Mammals. Octocrylene
`Levels in Franciscana Dolphins,” Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 47, no. 11, American
`Chemical Society, June 2013, pp. 5619–25, doi:10.1021/es400675y (last accessed Sept. 29, 2021);
`Zhang, Qiuya Y., et al. “Assessment of Multiple Hormone Activities of a UV-Filter (Octocrylene)
`in Zebrafish (Danio Rerio),” Chemosphere, vol. 159, Sept. 2016, pp. 433–41, ScienceDirect,
`doi:10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.06.037 (last accessed Sept. 29, 2021).
`25 Blüthgen, Nancy, et al. “Accumulation and Effects of the UV-Filter Octocrylene in Adult and
`Embryonic Zebrafish (Danio Rerio),” The Science of the Total Environment, vol. 476–477, Apr.
`2014, pp. 207–17, PubMed, doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.015 (last accessed Sept. 29, 2021).
`26 Stien, Didier, et al. “Metabolomics Reveal That Octocrylene Accumulates in Pocillopora
`Damicornis Tissues as Fatty Acid Conjugates and Triggers Coral Cell Mitochondrial
`Dysfunction,” Analytical Chemistry, vol. 91, no. 1, Jan. 2019, pp. 990–95, DOI.org (Crossref),
`doi:10.1021/acs.analchem.8b04187 (last accessed Sept. 29, 2021).
`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
`
`22525 Pacific Coast Highway
`
`CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
`
`Malibu, CA 90265
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-07669-SK Document 1 Filed 09/30/21 Page 15 of 40
`
`
`
`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
`
`26. Homosalate. Homosalate also has harmful effects similar to octocrlyene. Homoslate
`impacts the bodies hormone system, particularly the estrogen system. This hormone disruption, as
`well as pesticide disruption, are also cause harm to the coral reefs and aquatic organisms.27
`27. True Reef Friendly Sunscreens. True Reef Friendly sunscreens do not contain any
`harmful chemical ingredients. Many environmental organizations have favored min