throbber
Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 1 of 44
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
`Seth A. Safier (State Bar No. 197427)
` seth@gutridesafier.com
`Anthony J. Patek (State Bar No. 228964)
` anthony@gutridesafier.com
`100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone: (415) 639-9090
`Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`CARMEN PEREZ and ANDREA BROOKS,
`on behalf of themselves and those similarly
`situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC, a Delaware
`Limited Liability Company, and BATH &
`BODY WORKS, INC., a Delaware
`corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.: 5:21-cv-05606-BLF
`
`SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION
`COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD, DECEIT,
`AND/OR MISREPRESENTATION;
`VIOLATION OF THE CONSUMER
`LEGAL REMEDIES ACT; FALSE
`ADVERTISING; NEGLIGENT
`MISREPRESENTATION; UNFAIR,
`UNLAWFUL, AND DECEPTIVE TRADE
`PRACTICES; AND RESTITUTION
`(UNJUST ENRICHMENT).
`
`(PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION FILED
`UNDER SEAL – CONTAINS HIGHLY
`CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS EYES
`ONLY MATERIAL)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`Plaintiffs Carmen Perez and Andrea Brooks1 bring this action on behalf of themselves
`
`and all others similarly situated against Bath & Body Works, LLC and Bath & Body Works, Inc.
`
`and their employees, alter-egos, and agents (collectively “Defendants”). Plaintiffs’ allegations
`
`against Defendants are based upon information and belief and upon investigation of Plaintiffs’
`
`counsel, except for allegations specifically pertaining to Plaintiffs, which are based upon each
`
`Plaintiff’s personal knowledge.
`
`
`
`1 The Court granted Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration of Plaintiff Brooks’ claims and
`stayed her claims in this case pending resolution of that arbitration. (ECF 77.) Plaintiff Brooks
`has submitted a request for arbitration to the American Arbitration Association on July 1, 2022,
`which is within the 60 day deadline set by the Court to avoid dismissal.
`- 1 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 2 of 44
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Defendants are large companies that sell skin care products under, inter alia, the
`
`brand name “Bath & Body Works.” To increase their sales, Defendants trick consumers by
`
`making false claims about the capabilities of the ingredients within its products. Defendants do
`
`not disclose to consumers that its products and their ingredients are scientifically incapable of
`
`achieving the promised results.
`
`2.
`
` This case is about Defendants’ hyaluronic acid product lines. Defendants market
`
`and sell a series of products as “WATER,” “HYDRATING,” and/or “HYALRUONIC ACID.”
`
`Defendants falsely represent, inter alia, that hyaluronic acid, an ingredient in the products,
`
`“attracts and retains up to 1,000x its weight in water to make skin look smoother and more
`
`supple.” Defendants have profited enormously from its false marketing campaigns, while its
`
`customers are left with overpriced skin care products that do not live up to Defendants’ promises.
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Carmen Perez is, and was at all relevant times, an individual and resident
`
`of California. Ms. Perez currently resides in San Jose, California. Ms. Perez intends to live in
`
`16
`
`San Jose for the foreseeable future.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Andrea Brooks is, and was at all relevant times, an individual and
`
`resident of California. Ms. Brooks currently resides in Carpinteria, California. Ms. Brooks
`
`intends to live in Carpinteria for the foreseeable future.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant Bath & Body Works, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
`
`with its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio. Bath & Body Works LLC is a wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary of Bath & Body Works, Inc.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Bath & Body Works, Inc. (“B&BW Inc.”, formerly known as L
`
`Brands, Inc.) is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio.
`
`According to its SEC 10-K annual report filed March 2022, it is “a specialty retailer of home
`
`fragrance, body care products and soaps and sanitizer products.” B&BW Inc. goes on to state
`
`that “[t]hrough Bath & Body Works . . . and other brand names, the Company sells merchandise
`
`through Company-operated specialty retail stores” in the U.S. and Canada, “and through its web
`
`- 2 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 3 of 44
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`site and other channels.” The company changed its name from “L Brands, Inc.” to “Bath and
`
`Body Works, Inc.” on August 3, 2021. In its March 2021 10-K filing, Bath & Body Works, Inc.
`
`stated that it was reporting Bath & Body Works LLC and Victoria’s Secret segments as separate
`
`reportable segments that included “sourcing and production functions (formerly known as Mast)
`
`and certain other functions that directly support each brand.” In the 2021 SEC filing, B&BW
`
`Inc. also claimed to “operate more than 1,735 Bath & Body Works stores in the U.S. and Canada
`
`and online at BathandBodyWorks.com.”
`
`7.
`
`Mast Global LLC2, a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place
`
`of business in Columbus, Ohio, is (or was) a wholly-owned division of Bath & Body Works,
`
`Inc. Mast Global was registered as a Delaware limited liability company in November 2017.
`
`Prior to that date, “Mast Global” was a registered trade name for Beautyavenues LLC (a.k.a.
`
`Beauty Avenues), another subsidiary of Bath & Body Works Inc. and Delaware limited liability
`
`company with its principal place of business in Columbus, Ohio.
`
`8.
`
`Mast Global’s current status as a corporate entity is unclear. Mast Global is still
`
`listed as a Delaware Limited Liability company on Delaware’s Secretary of State’s web site. But
`
`B&BW has indicated that Mast Global no longer exists, and Mast Global LLC’s registration in
`
`Delaware appears to have been cancelled due to nonpayment of Delaware taxes. At the same
`
`time, Beautyavenues LLC—which previously did business under the name “Mast Global”—is
`
`still listed as in good standing in Delaware, and Mast Global is still listed as a trade name for “L
`
`20
`
`Brands” (i.e., B&BW Inc.).
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`9.
`
`At all times herein mentioned, Defendants B&BW Inc. and B&BW LLC,
`
`individually and collectively, were members of, and engaged in, a joint venture, partnership and
`
`common enterprise, and acting within the course and scope of, and in pursuance of, said joint
`
`venture, partnership, and common enterprise.
`
`
`
`2 Mast Global LLC is not a defendant at this time. Plaintiffs initially reserved a hearing date for
`a motion for leave to amend to add Mast Global LLC as a defendant, but Defendants threated to
`move for sanctions under Rule 11 if Plaintiffs did so. While Plaintiff disagree with Defendants’
`position, Plaintiffs did not wish to burden the Court with unnecessary motion practice without
`some guidance from the Court. Plaintiffs do, however, assert that Mast Global played a role in
`the events alleged and that B&BW Inc. and/or B&BW LLC are liable for Mast Global’s actions.
`- 3 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 4 of 44
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`10. More specifically, B&BW Inc.—both directly and through its agent and alter ego
`
`Mast Global—formulated, manufactured, packaged, shipped into California, and performed all
`
`regulatory and legal functions for the Products, including reviewing, editing, and approving the
`
`Products’ labels and the false claims alleged herein.
`
`11.
`
`B&BW LLC acted as the marketing and sales arm of the joint enterprise; it
`
`participated in drafting the marketing strategy and claims alleged herein, and it sold the Products
`
`to consumers.
`
`12.
`
`At all times herein mentioned, the acts and omissions of each Defendant
`
`concurred with and contributed to the various acts and omissions of each and all of the other
`
`Defendants in proximately causing the injuries and damages as herein alleged.
`
`13.
`
`At all times herein mentioned, each Defendant ratified each and every act or
`
`omission complained of herein. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, individually and
`
`collectively, aided and abetted the acts and omissions of each and all of the other Defendants in
`
`proximately causing the damages, and other injuries, as herein alleged.
`
`B&BW Inc. Is Liable for the Acts of Its Agent and Alter Ego, Mast Global.
`
`14.
`
`B&BW Inc. and its personnel were direct participants in the events described
`
`herein, as described further below, and are directly liable for the misconduct alleged herein as a
`
`18
`
`result of their own actions.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`15.
`
`B&BW Inc. is also liable for the acts alleged herein as the principal and alter ego
`
`of its agent and alter ego Mast Global.
`
`16.
`
`In a company overview, Mast Global identified itself as a “division of L Brands,
`
`Inc.” and said that it was “headquartered within L Brands’ commercial park located in the greater
`
`23
`
`Columbus, Ohio area.”
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`17. Mast Global further stated that it served “as the IT and Logistical support arm for
`
`the L Brands retail divisions. . . . The logistical support that Mast provides to L Brands is the
`
`operation of all distribution centers for each division, which includes both inbound and outbound
`
`Distribution Center (DC) traffic.” The “retail divisions” Mast Global served include B&BW
`
`LLC.
`
`- 4 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 5 of 44
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`18.
`
`On information and belief, Mast Global LLC (and Beauty Avenues, which
`
`operated as “Mast Global” prior to formation of Mast Global LLC) shared offices and personnel
`
`with B&BW Inc. and operated as an internal division of B&BW Inc. for the benefit of B&BW
`
`Inc. and its fellow subsidiaries, including B&BW LLC. Public sources indicate that Beauty
`
`Avenues sometimes operated under the name “Bath & Body Works.”
`
`19.
`
`B&BW Inc. actively controlled, directed, and oversaw Mast Global’s (and
`
`Beauty Avenue’s) partnership with B&BW LLC. Further, B&BW Inc. referred to Mast Global
`
`as a “wholly owned division” of itself, thereby identifying Mast Global as its alter ego and/or
`
`agent, with B&BW Inc. and Mast Global sharing a single unity of purpose.
`
`20.
`
`Because B&BW Inc. had complete ownership and control of Mast Global and
`
`directed it to participate in the alleged activities with B&BW LLC, it is liable for Mast Global’s
`
`12
`
`acts.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`21.
`
`As Plaintiffs will show, B&BW Inc. was not an arms-length participant; its
`
`personnel were direct participants in daily marketing and product development decisions for the
`
`15
`
`products at issue.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`22. Mast Global had direct involvement in distribution of products into California as
`
`an agent of B&BW Inc. (then L Brands). Mast Global also formulated, manufactured, helped
`
`package, and participated in regulatory decisions—including approving label claims—for the
`
`Products in its capacity as L Brands logistics, manufacturing, and scientific/R&D division.
`
`Defendants have admitted Mast Global’s responsibility for these functions through production
`
`of documents and identification in their Initial Disclosures of Mast Global personnel (who were
`
`acting on B&BW Inc.’s behalf) as the people involved in formulating, manufacturing, and
`
`approving label claims for the Products.
`
`23.
`
`On information and belief, Mast Global is also an alter ego of B&BW Inc./L
`
`Brands. The alter ego doctrine allows piercing the veil between corporations when subsidiary
`
`corporations are used by a dominating parent corporation to engage in fraudulent or wrongful
`
`conduct. Under California law, a parent corporation is the alter ego of its subsidiary if it controls
`
`the subsidiary to such a degree as to render it the mere instrumentality of the parent. Institute of
`
`- 5 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 6 of 44
`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 6 of 44
`
`—_
`
`Veterinary Pathology. Inc. v. California Health Laboratories, Inc., 116 Cal.App.3d 111, 119,
`
`172 Cal. Rptr. 74 (1981). To establish jurisdiction, therefore, Plaintiffs must prove both of the
`
`following: 1) such a unity of interest in ownership as to dissolve the separate corporate
`
`personalities of the parent and the subsidiary, relegating the latter to the status of merely an
`
`instrumentality, agency, conduit, or adjunct of the former, and 2) an inequitable result will occur
`
`if the conductis treated as that of the subsidiary alone. Here, B&BW Inc. dominated Mast Global
`
`
`
`and operated Mast Global as an arm of its own business. This fact is reflected
`
`NN Frthermore, ifB&BW Inc. has
`
`dissolved Mast Global, or folded Mast Global’s operations into its own (or B&BW LLC’s),it
`
`would be inequitable to allow B&BW Inc. to do so and yet escape liability for Mast Global’s
`
`conduct done under B&BWInc.’s control and direction.
`
`24.
`
`In the alternative that Mast Global LLC no longer exists, B&BW Ine. is, on
`
`information andbelief, liable as a successor company for the actions of Mast Global LLC in
`
`propagating the falsehoods alleged herein. Given Mast Global’s role as a wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of B&BW Inc., operating under complete control of B&BW Inc. for the benefit of
`
`B&BW Ine.’s portfolio of subsidiary companies, while registered by B&BW Ince. as a trade
`
`name,it is possible that Mast Global has been dissolved, with its assets and liabilities absorbed
`
`N W
`
`w > n
`
`N n — o
`
`o
`
`\o
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`by B&BW Inc.
`
`25.—Plaimtiffs allege in the alternative that B&BW LLCis liable as the successor
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`company for Mast Global LLC, based on the apparent reassignment of Mast Global personnel,
`
`including Joel Burdick and Eoghan Gallagher, to BeBW LLC.
`
`26.|Courts look beyond the corporate form where necessary to prevent fraud or to
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`achieve equity. Under Delaware law, a parent corporation may becomea party to its subsidiary’s
`
`contract if the parent’s conduct manifests an intent to be bound by the contract. Such intent will
`
`be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the transaction, including whether the parent
`
`participated in the negotiation of the contract and whether the subsidiary “is a dummyfor the
`
`-6-
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT — CASE NO. 5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 7 of 44
`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 7 of 44
`
`—_
`
`parent corporation.” A.W. Fiur Co. v. Ataka & Co., 71 A.D.2d 370 (1st Dept. 1979). Here, it is
`
`apparent from documents and testimony that Mast Global entered into some agreement to
`
`participate in development of the accused hyaluronic acid Products.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, B&BW Ine. is a party to whatever agreement existed
`
`between B&BW LLC and Mast Global LLC.
`
`27.
`
`Under Jn re Sbarro Holding, Inc., 91 A.D.2d 613 (2d Dept. 1982), the corporate
`
`veil will be pierced (1) to achieve equity, even absent fraud, where the officers and employees
`
`N W
`
`w > n
`
`N n — o
`
`o
`
`\o
`
`of a parent corporation exercise control over the daily operations of a subsidiary corporation and
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`act as the true prime movers behind the subsidiary’s actions, and/or (2) where a parent
`
`corporation conducts business through a subsidiary which exists solely to serve the parent.
`
`Global’s business.
`
`Sbarro, 91 A.D.2d at 614 (citations omitted). Here, B&BW Inc. controlled all aspects of Mast
`
`
`
`
`B&BW Inc. and MastGlobal advertised Mast Globalas the logistics and manufacturing division
`
`of L Brands (i.e., B&BW Inc.), thereby establishing that Mast Global existed to serve B&BW
`
`Inc. by providing support for B&BW Inc.’s portfolio companies.
`
`28.
`
`Factors weighed in assessing the degree of domination and control exercised by
`
`the parent company include: overlap in ownership, officers, directors, and personnel; common
`
`office space, address and telephone numbers of the corporate entities; whether the related
`
`corporations deal with the dominated corporation at arm’s length; and whether the corporation
`
`in question had property that was used by other of the corporationsasif it were its own. No one
`
`23
`
`factor controls the consideration.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`29.
`
`The above factors support piercing the corporate veil here.
`
`a.
`
`Overlap in Ownership. B&BWInc. (formerly “L Brands”) owned 100%
`
`of Mast Global LLC and advertised Mast Global as a “wholly-owned
`
`division” of L Brands. B&BW Inc. also owned Beautyavenues LLC,
`
`which registered “Mast Global”as its trade name in Ohio in 2015, prior
`
`-7-
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT — CASE NO. 5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 8 of 44
`
`
`
`to Mast Global LLC’s registration as a Delaware company by B&BW Inc.
`
`in late 2017. Later, in 2020, L Brands Inc. (i.e., B&BW Inc.) updated
`
`“Mast Global” as its trade name in Ohio.3
`
`b.
`
`Overlap in Officers. Officers of B&BW Inc. sat as officers of Mast
`
`Global. For example, B&BW Inc.’s SEC filings list Charles McGuigan
`
`simultaneously as Chief Operating Officer of B&BW Inc. and CEO and
`
`President of Mast Global from 2011 until 2020.
`
`c.
`
`Failure to Operate at Arms Length. The entities did not operate at arms
`
`length. Tasks were distributed to Mast Global by B&BW Inc. on a routine
`
`and daily basis, without negotiation of
`
`terms or exchange of
`
`consideration.
`
`d.
`
`Common Office Space. As noted above, Mast Global appears to have
`
`shared common office space with B&BW
`
`Inc. Furthermore,
`
`Beautyavenues LLC, when operating as Mast Global, listed its offices as
`
`Three River Parkway, Columbus, Ohio—the same address listed by
`
`B&BW Inc./L Brands when it took over Mast Global’s registration as a
`
`trade name.
`
`e.
`
`Treatment of Mast Global Property as B&BW Inc. Property. B&BW
`
`Inc./L Brands appears to have operated under the assumption that Mast
`
`Global’s property and personnel existed to service its needs. L Brands and
`
`Mast Global personnel routinely ignored the formal distinctions between
`
`the corporations, with employees publicly identifying themselves as
`
`working for both companies. Personnel sometimes had both “lb.com” and
`
`“mast.com” email addresses, indicating joint use of commonly-owned
`
`email servers and computer networks.
`
`
`
`3 Although B&BW Inc. has since indicated that it is abandoning this trade name, it did so only
`after Plaintiff’s counsel notified Defendants that Plaintiffs intended to add Mast Global as a
`defendant. B&BW Inc.’s belated abandonment thus appears aimed at avoiding liability.
`- 8 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 9 of 44
`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 9 of 44
`
`
`
`Thesefacts
`
`demonstrate a pronounced and intimate commingling ofidentities of B&BW Inc. and Mast
`
`Global.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`31.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
`
`—_
`
`N W
`
`w > n
`
`N
`
`oO
`
`— o
`
`o
`
`\o
`
`10
`
`U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2). The aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of
`
`ll
`
`interest and costs; and Plaintiffs and at least one Defendantare citizens of different states.
`
`32.|The imjuries, damages and/or harm upon whichthis action is based, occurred or
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`arose out of activities engaged in by Defendants within, affecting, and emanating from, the State
`
`of California. Defendants regularly conduct and/orsolicit business in, engage in other persistent
`
`courses of conduct in, and/or derive substantial revenue from products provided to persons in
`
`the State of California. Defendants have engaged, and continue to engage, in substantial and
`
`continuous businesspractices in the State of California.
`
`33.|Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
`18
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in the state of
`
`California, including within this District.
`
`34.
`
`In accordance with California Civil Code Section 1780(d), Plaintiff Carmen
`
`Perez concurrently files herewith a declaration establishing that she purchased Bath & Body
`
`Works Water Hyaluronic Acid Hydrating Cream in a Bath & Body Worksstore in Milpitas,
`
`California. (Plaintiff Perez’s declaration is attached hereto as Exhibit A.)
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiffs accordingly allege that jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-9-
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT — CASE NO. 5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 10 of 44
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS
`
`36.
`
`The market for cosmetics is fiercely competitive. Cosmetics manufacturers
`
`continually attempt to gain market share by touting the latest ingredients in their products and
`
`marketing them as being capable of improving consumers’ appearance.
`
`37.
`
`Even in an industry known for hype, Defendant’s outrageous marketing practices
`
`stand out among those of its competitors. As discussed below, Defendant’s claims about its skin
`
`care products are not just hype; rather, they are demonstrably false.
`
`38.
`
`Under the brand name “Bath & Body Works,”4 Defendants market, advertise and
`
`sell products such as skin creams, lotions, scrubs, shampoos, conditioners, scents, and body wash
`
`to consumers. Defendants sell their products in their over 2000 company stores and on
`
`Defendants’ proprietary website, www.bathandbodyworks.com (the “Website”).
`
`39.
`
`Defendants understand that consumers are concerned about looking youthful,
`
`reducing the appearance of wrinkles and fine lines on their faces, and maintaining healthy, clear,
`
`supple skin. Defendants know that consumers are therefore willing to pay more for products that
`
`promise to make them look younger, keep their skin healthy, and reverse the signs of aging.
`
`40.
`
`Accordingly, Defendants have embarked on a long term advertising campaign to
`
`trick consumers into believing that many of their products contain cutting-edge scientific
`
`technologies that will offer younger, healthier skin, when Defendants know that their claims are
`
`false or misleading to reasonable consumers.
`
`Defendants Make False and Misleading Claims About Their “Hyaluronic Acid” Line of
`Products.
`
`41.
`
`Defendants sell various products as part of their “WATER” / “HYDRATING”
`
`line. These products include, without limitation:
`
`a.
`
`B&BW Hyaluronic Acid Hydrating Body Cream (in varying scents, e.g.,
`
`“cactus water,” “rose water,” etc.);
`
`b.
`
`B&BW Hyaluronic Acid Hydrating Hand Cream (in varying scents, e.g.,
`
`“cactus water,” “rose water,” etc.);
`
`
`
`4 Also referred to herein as “B&BW.”
`
`- 10 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 11 of 44
`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 11 of 44
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`B&BW Hyaluronic Acid Hydrating Body Wash;
`
`B&BW Hyaluronic Acid Hydrating Body Gel Lotion; and
`
`B&BW Hyaluronic Acid Mineral Body Polish (in varying scents).
`
`(Collectively, the “Hyaluronic Acid Products”or “Products”)
`
`42.
`
`Defendants share numerous responsibilities for all Bath & Body Works products,
`
`including the Hyaluronic Acid Products. B&BW LLC personnel drafted packaging and
`
`advertising claims, developed marketing strategy, performed tests of marketing efficacy, and
`
`trained in-store personnel on howto sell the products. B&BW Inc. personnel, with support from
`
`—_
`
`N W
`
`w > n
`
`N n — o
`
`o
`
`\o
`
`MastGlobal personnel, performedall legal and regulatory functions, including review and final
`
`approval of advertising and packaging claims. Mast Global personnel, acting as B&BW Inc.’s
`
`logistics and manufacturing arm, handled formulating, manufacturing, packaging the Products,
`
`as well as distributing the Products to Bath & Body Works retail locations.
`
`43.
`
`Responsibility for Bath & Body Works retail locations appears to have been
`
`shared by B&BW LLC and B&BWInc. In written declarations submitted to this Court (ECF 20-
`
`1), Bath & Body Works LLC purports to handle sales and marketing for the Bath & Body Works
`
`44.
`
`B&BWInce.acted as a supervisor to the other companies activities, with its
`
`personnel weighing in on day-to-day operations and decisions forall of the activities described
`
`22
`
`herein.
`
`45.
`
`B&BWLLCdelegated product development and manufacturing responsibilities
`
`for the Hyaluronic Acid Products with Mast Global, B&BW Ince.’s agent and alter ego.
`
`According to deposition testumony from Joel Burdick, Ph.D., former Associate Vice President
`
`of Scientific Affairs at Mast Global during most of the relevant time period and current Vice
`
`President of Product Integrity at B&BW LLC,
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`-ll-
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT — CASE NO.5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`brand and purports to operate the Bath & Body Works online and brick-and-mortar stores.
`
`
`
`However, B&BW Inc. purports to do the samein its SEC filings, and
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 12 of 44
`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 12 of 44
`
`—"
`
`N W
`
`w > n
`
`N
`
`oO
`
`~—
`
`oo
`
`\o
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`B&BW Inc. (operating as “L Brands”) in the events alleged herein.3
`
`>\o
`
`-12-
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT — CASENO. 5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 13 of 44
`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 13 of 44
`
`om
`
`P
`
`hho
`
`A] Oo
`
`nN _
`
`Because the development, marketing, and sale of the Products wasa joint venture
`
`between B&BW LLC and B&BW Ince.
`
`(including its Mast Global division) with active
`
`participation by both entities, Defendants B&BW Inc. and B&BW LLCare joimtly and
`
`separately liable for the misconductalleged herein.
`
`-13-
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT — CASE NO. 5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`—"
`
`N
`
`oo—ann>Ww
`
`\o
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 14 of 44
`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 14 of 44
`
`—_
`
`Defendants Falsely Represent to Consumersthat the Hyaluronic Acid Products Moisturize
`Skin by Attracting and Retaining Up To 1000x the Hyaluronic Acid’s Weight in Water.
`
`52.
`
`Throughoutthe class period and continuing to the present, Defendants have made
`
`false and misleading marketing to trick consumers into believing that the Hyaluronic Acid
`
`Products contain unique moisturizing properties. Specifically, Defendants falsely representthat,
`
`because of the presence of hyaluronic acid in the Hyaluronic Acid Products, the products are
`
`capable ofattracting and retaming large quantities of water, presumably from the atmosphere
`
`into the user’s skin, for long-lasting benefits. Defendants make this false claim to emulate its
`
`
`competitors, noting that
`
`explained below, however, these representations are false and misleading.
`
`53.
`
`For example, throughoutthe class period, the packaging for the Hyaluronic Acid
`
`Hydrating Body Cream states that the product contains “HYALURONIC ACID”that “attracts
`
`and retains up to 1,000x its weight in water” to “instantly replenish moisture for smooth,
`
`hydrated skin” or “make skin look smoother and more supple.”
`
`54.
`
`Thefront label for the Hyaluronic Acid Hydrating Body Cream is shown below.
`
`The front label suggests the presence of Hyaluronic Acid in important by placing it in large,
`
`different-colored font above “Hydrating Body Cream.”
`
`HYDRATING
`BODY CREAM
`
`
` = HYALURONIC
`
`
`
`
`
`Bath &
`Body Works
`8 OTs 226g
`
`° These other companies have removedthefalse “1,000X”claim from their productlabels.
`-14-
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT — CASE NO.5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`N W
`
`w + n
`
`N n — o
`
`o
`
`\o
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 15 of 44
`
`
`
`•
`
`The packaging further states, in bulleted language on the back that the hyaluronic
`
`acid “attracts and retains up to 1,000x its weight in water to make skin look
`
`smoother and more supple”:
`
`
`
`55.
`
`The following image, submitted by Bath & Body Works with a request for
`
`judicial notice (see ECF 20, Ex. B), is the proof for the Bath & Body Works label (back and
`
`front) depicted above:
`
`- 15 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 16 of 44
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`56. Moreover, on information and belief, in-store personnel were instructed to inform
`
`customers of that the hyaluronic acid in each product attracted and retained up to “1,000x its
`
`weight in water.”
`
`57.
`
`The “1,000x its weight in water” claim was also made on in-store, point-of-sale
`
`advertising, such as signs placed near the Products to attract consumers and entice them to
`
`purchase the Products.
`
`58.
`
`The Bath & Body Works website (the “Website”) makes the exact same
`
`representations. In addition to prominently featuring photographs of the Hyaluronic Acid
`
`Products’ containers, the website contains descriptions of the products that mirror the false and
`
`deceptive representations on the packages.
`
`59.
`
`The representations that Defendants make on the Hyaluronic Acid Products’
`
`boxes and containers are viewed by consumers who shop for their products, regardless of
`
`whether they shop at retail stores or online. Each of Defendants’ stores make the containers
`
`available for consumers to view as they shop. Further, the representations are repeated on
`
`advertisements displayed near the Products, both in-store and on the Website.
`
`60.
`
`Bath & Body Works makes materially identical claims for all of its Hyaluronic
`
`Acid Products. In particular, the false claim that hyaluronic acid “retains 1,000 times its weight
`
`in water” appears on the labels, packaging, and/or advertising for all of the Hyaluronic Acid
`
`Products. Several of the Products also claim that hyaluronic acid “attracts” 1,000X its weight in
`
`20
`
`water.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`61.
`
`For example, the label of Bath & Body Works’ Hyaluronic Acid Body Gel
`
`includes “HYALURONIC ACID” in large capital letters in a contrasting color on the front label,
`
`followed by the back label statement “WATER IS EVERYTHING. Naturally found in your skin,
`
`Hyaluronic acid is a water-loving molecule that promotes skin health. A powerful hydrator and
`
`replenishing agent, Hyaluronic Acid attracts and retains up to 1,000X its weight in water to
`
`- 16 -
`PLAINTIFFS’ SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – CASE NO. 5:21-CV-05606-BLF
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-05606-BLF Document 95 Filed 10/28/22 Page 17 of 44
`
`
`
`make skin look smoother and more supple.” The relevant portion of the Body Gel’s back label
`
`is reproduced below:
`
`
`
`62.
`
`The label of Bath & Body Works’ Hyaluronic Acid Hydrating Body Wash
`
`includes identical statements to those of the Body Cream and Body Gel, as shown below:
`
`Thus, the Bath & B

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket