Case: 4:22-cv-00841-PLC Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/11/22 Page: 1 of 79 PageID #: 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`DELIA DE SANTIAGO LIZAMA, MICHELLE
`OLSEN, on behalf of themselves and
`
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`VENUS LABORATORIES, INC., dba
`
`EARTH FRIENDLY PRODUCTS, INC.
`
`Serve: Registered Agent
`
`
`
`Venus Laboratories, Inc.,
`
`
`dba Earth Friendly Products, Inc.
`
`11150 Hope St.
`
`
`
`Cypress, CA 90630
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Cause No.
`
`Division:
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`COME NOW Plaintiffs Delia De Santiago Lizama and Michelle Olsen, on behalf of
`
`themselves and all others similarly situated, through their attorneys, and brings this action
`
`against Defendant Venus Laboratories, Inc. dba Earth Friendly Products, Inc. (hereinafter
`
`referred to as “Defendant,” “Earth Friendly,” or “ECOS”); and, upon information and belief,
`
`except as to the allegations that pertain to themselves, which are based upon personal knowledge,
`
`alleges as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and as a representative of a class of
`
`persons similarly situated who purchased Earth Friendly’s ECOS brand Products for personal,
`
`family, or household purposes.
`
`2.
`
`In recent years, consumers have become significantly more aware of and sensitive
`
`to the toxicity and impact of household products on the environment. Consumers seek, and will
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00841-PLC Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/11/22 Page: 2 of 79 PageID #: 2
`
`pay a premium for, products that are safe and responsibly made, including products that will not
`
`negatively affect the environment.
`
`3.
`
`As a result, demand has increased for “green” products that are non-toxic, safe,
`
`and environmentally friendly.
`
`4.
`
`Earth Friendly develops, manufacturers, markets, distributes, and sells a variety of
`
`personal, family, or household products under its ECOS brand, including:
`
`• ECOS® All-Purpose Cleaner - Parsley Plus®
`• ECOS® All-Purpose Cleaner - Orange Plus®
`• ECOS® Cream Cleanser - Lemon
`• ECOS® Fruit + Veggie Wash
`• ECOS® Furniture Polish + Cleaner - Orange
`• ECOS® Shower Cleaner - Tea Tree
`• ECOS® Stain + Odor Remover - Lemon
`• ECOS® Stainless Steel Cleaner + Polish
`• ECOS® Toilet Cleaner - Cedar
`• ECOS® Window Cleaner - Vinegar
`• ECOS® Between Baths™ Grooming Spray - Peppermint
`• ECOS® Kitty Litter Deodorizer
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent with Enzymes - Magnolia & Lily
`• ECOS® Liquidless Laundry Detergent Squares - Lavender Vanilla
`• ECOS® Liquidless Laundry Detergent Squares - Free & Clear
`• ECOS® Liquidless Laundry Detergent Squares - Magnolia & Lily
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent Pack - Free & Clear
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Hand Soap - Free & Clear
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Pet Shampoo - Peppermint
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Pet Shampoo – Fragrance Free
`• ECOS® Pet Stain & Odor Remover
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Dish Soap - Lavender
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Dish Soap - Bamboo Lemon
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Dish Soap - Grapefruit
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Dish Soap - Apricot
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Dish Soap - Pear
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Dishmate Dish Soap – Free & Clear
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Dishmate Dish Soap – Grapefruit
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Dishmate Dish Soap – Almond
`• ECOS® Wave® Dishwasher Gel - Free & Clear
`• ECOS® Wave® Dishwasher Packs - Free & Clear
`• ECOS® WaveJet® Rinse Aid
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00841-PLC Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/11/22 Page: 3 of 79 PageID #: 3
`
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Hand Soap - Lavender
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Hand Soap - Lemongrass
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Hand Soap – Orange Blossom
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent - Lavender
`• ECOSNEXT™ Hypoallergenic Liquidless Laundry Detergent - Magnolia & Lily
`• ECOSNEXT™ Hypoallergenic Liquidless Laundry Detergent – Lavender Vanilla
`• ECOSNEXT™ Hypoallergenic Liquidless Laundry Detergent – Free & Clear
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent with Enzymes - Free & Clear
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent with Enzymes - Lavender
`• ECOSBreeze® Odor Eliminator - Magnolia & Lily
`• ECOSBreeze® Odor Eliminator - Lemongrass
`• ECOSBreeze® Odor Eliminator – Lavender Vanilla
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Dish Soap - Free & Clear
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent - Magnolia & Lily
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent - Lemongrass
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Baby Laundry Detergent - Free & Clear
`• ECOS® Hypoallergenic Baby Laundry Detergent - Lavender Chamomile
`• ECOS® Baby Bottle & Dish Wash - Free & Clear
`• ECOS® Baby Stain & Odor Remover
`• ECOS® Baby Toy & Table Cleaner - Free & Clear
`
`
`(hereinafter the “ECOS Products” or the “Products”).1
`
`5.
`
`This action seeks to remedy the unlawful, unfair, deceptive, and misleading
`
`business practices of Earth Friendly with respect to the marketing and sale of its household
`
`cleaning products, which are sold throughout the State of Missouri, the State of California, and
`
`the United States.
`
`6.
`In an effort to increase profits and to gain an advantage over its lawfully acting
`competitors, Earth Friendly falsely and misleadingly markets and labels the Products as “non-
`toxic,” “safer,” “made without known carcinogens, reproductive toxins, or endocrine
`
`disruptors,” “climate positive,” “Earth Friendly,” and/or “sustainable.” Contrary to these
`
`representations, the Products are plainly not “non-toxic,” “safer,” and environmentally friendly
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this Complaint to include any additional household
`cleaning items sold by ECOS that are within the scope of this Complaint.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00841-PLC Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/11/22 Page: 4 of 79 PageID #: 4
`
`because the Products can cause harm to humans, animals, and/or the environment. This
`
`marketing and labeling deceives consumers into believing that they are receiving non-toxic, safe,
`
`and environmentally friendly Products, but Earth Friendly’s Products do not live up to these
`
`claims.
`
`7.
`
`Conscious of consumers’ increased interest in more “green” products that are
`
`non-toxic, safe, and environmentally-friendly and willingness to pay more for products perceived
`
`to meet this preference, Earth Friendly misleadingly, illegally, and deceptively seeks to capitalize
`
`on these consumer “green” trends.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiffs purchased the Products in reliance on Earth Friendly’s representations
`
`that these Products are “non-toxic,” “safer,” “made without known carcinogens, reproductive
`
`toxins, or endocrine disruptors,” “climate positive,” “Earth Friendly,” and/or “sustainable.”
`
`They would not have purchased the Products if they had known that they were toxic, harmful,
`
`dangerous, and environmentally damaging.
`
`9.
`
`Consumers expect products that are marketed as “non-toxic,” “safer,” “made
`
`without known carcinogens, reproductive toxins, or endocrine disruptors,” “climate positive,”
`
`“Earth Friendly,” and/or “sustainable” to not contain toxic, harmful, dangerous, and
`
`environmentally damaging ingredients such as phenoxyethanol, methylisothiazolinone,
`
`cocamidopropyl betaine, and lauramine oxide.
`
`10.
`
`Phenoxyethanol is one of the ingredients used in numerous ECOS Products.
`
`Phenoxyethanol is toxic by definition under federal law, based on animal testing demonstrating
`
`that the substance is lethal even in very small doses. Even short exposure could cause serious
`
`temporary or residual injury. It is toxic to the kidneys, the nervous system, and the liver. It is
`
`extremely hazardous in case of eye contact and very hazardous in case of skin contact (defatting
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00841-PLC Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/11/22 Page: 5 of 79 PageID #: 5
`
`the skin and adversely affecting the central nervous system and peripheral nervous system,
`
`causing headaches, tremors, and central nervous system depression). It is also very hazardous in
`
`case of ingestion or inhalation. It degrades into substances that are even more toxic. It is a
`
`Category 2 germ cell mutagen, meaning that it is suspected of mutating human cells in a way that
`
`can be transmitted to children conceived after exposure. Phenoxyethanol is an ethylene glycol
`
`ether, which is known to cause wasting of the testicles, reproductive changes, infertility, and
`
`changes to kidney function. Phenoxyethanol is also Category 2 carcinogen, meaning that it is
`
`suspected to induce cancer or increase its incidence.
`
`11.
`
`Case studies indicate that repeated exposure to phenoxyethanol results in acute
`
`neurotoxic effects, as well as chronic solvent-induced brain syndrome, constant irritability,
`
`impaired memory, depression, alcohol intolerance, episodes of tachycardia and dyspnea, and
`
`problems with balance and rash.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class reasonably believed Earth Friendly’s false and misleading
`
`representations. Earth Friendly knew or reasonably should have known that its representations
`
`regarding the Products were false, deceptive, misleading, and unlawful under Missouri law,
`
`California law, and common law.
`
`13.
`
`Earth Friendly misrepresented, and/or concealed, suppressed, or omitted material
`
`facts in connection with the sale, distribution, and/or advertisement of the Products.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiffs and the Class Members paid a premium for the Products over
`
`comparable products that did not purport to be “non-toxic,” “safer,” “made without known
`
`carcinogens, reproductive toxins, or endocrine disruptors,” “climate positive,” “Earth
`
`Friendly,” and/or “sustainable.” Given that Plaintiffs and Class Members paid a premium for
`
`the Products based on Earth Friendly’s representations that they are non-toxic, safe, and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00841-PLC Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/11/22 Page: 6 of 79 PageID #: 6
`
`environmentally friendly, Plaintiffs and the Class Members suffered an injury in the amount of
`
`the purchase price and/or the premium paid.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiffs brings claims against Earth Friendly individually and on behalf of the
`
`Class Members who purchased the Products during the applicable statute of limitations period
`
`(the “Class Period”) for (1) violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“MMPA”), §
`
`407.010 et. seq.; (2) violation of California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Civil
`
`Code §§ 1750, et. seq.; (3) violation of California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Business &
`
`Professions Code § 17500 et seq.; (4) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law
`
`(“UCL”), California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.; (5) breach of express
`
`warranty; (6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability; (7) unjust enrichment; (8) negligent
`
`misrepresentation; and (9) fraud.
`
`PARTIES
`
`16.
`
`At all relevant times, Plaintiff Delia De Santiago Lizama was and is a resident of
`
`the State of Missouri. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Lizama has purchased ECOS Products
`
`for personal, family, or household use from a Whole Foods Market in St. Louis County. Plaintiff
`
`Lizama’s purchases include, without limitation, ECOS® Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent –
`
`Lavender, ECOS® Hypoallergenic Dish Soap - Free & Clear, and ECOS® Hypoallergenic
`
`Laundry Detergent - Magnolia & Lily in the state of Missouri. Accordingly, Plaintiff Lizama
`
`has been injured as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct alleged herein.
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff Lizama purchased the ECOS Products because she saw the labeling,
`
`advertising, the Defendants’ website, and read the packaging, which represented that the
`
`Products were as “non-toxic,” “safer,” “made without known carcinogens, reproductive toxins,
`
`or endocrine disruptors,” “climate positive,” “Earth Friendly,” and/or “sustainable.” Plaintiff
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00841-PLC Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/11/22 Page: 7 of 79 PageID #: 7
`
`Lizama relied on Defendant’s false, misleading, and deceptive representations that the Products
`
`are non-toxic, safe, and environmentally friendly. She understood this to mean that the Products
`
`were not non-toxic, safe, and environmentally friendly and would not cause harm to humans,
`
`animals, and/or the environment. Plaintiff Lizama would not have purchased the Products at all,
`
`or would have been willing to pay a substantially reduced price for the ECOS Products, if she
`
`had known that they were toxic, harmful, dangerous, and environmentally damaging. Plaintiff
`
`Lizama would purchase the Products in the future if Defendant changed the composition of the
`
`Products so that they conformed to their non-toxic,” “safer,” “made without known carcinogens,
`
`reproductive toxins, or endocrine disruptors,” “climate positive,” “Earth Friendly,” and/or
`
`“sustainable” packaging and labeling, or if the packages and labels were corrected and she could
`
`trust that they were correct.
`
`18.
`
`At all relevant times, Plaintiff Michelle Olsen was and is a resident of the State of
`
`California. During the Class Period, Plaintiff Olsen has purchased ECOS Products for personal,
`
`family, or household use from a Whole Foods Market in Pasadena, California. Plaintiff Olsen’s
`
`purchases include, without limitation, ECOS® Hypoallergenic Laundry Detergent – Free &
`
`Clear in the state of California. Accordingly, Plaintiff Olsen has been injured as a result of
`
`Defendant’s unlawful conduct alleged herein.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff Olsen purchased the ECOS Products because she saw the labeling,
`
`advertising, the Defendants’ website, and read the packaging, which represented that the
`
`Products were as “non-toxic,” “safer,” “made without known carcinogens, reproductive toxins,
`
`or endocrine disruptors,” “climate positive,” “Earth Friendly,” and/or “sustainable.” Plaintiff
`
`Olsen relied on Defendant’s false, misleading, and deceptive representations that the Products
`
`are non-toxic, safe, and environmentally friendly. She understood this to mean that the Products
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00841-PLC Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/11/22 Page: 8 of 79 PageID #: 8
`
`were not non-toxic, safe, and environmentally friendly and would not cause harm to humans,
`
`animals, and/or the environment. Plaintiff Olsen would not have purchased the Products at all,
`
`or would have been willing to pay a substantially reduced price for the ECOS Products, if she
`
`had known that they were toxic, harmful, dangerous, and environmentally damaging. Plaintiff
`
`Olsen would purchase the Products in the future if Defendant changed the composition of the
`
`Products so that they conformed to their non-toxic,” “safer,” “made without known carcinogens,
`
`reproductive toxins, or endocrine disruptors,” “climate positive,” “Earth Friendly,” and/or
`
`“sustainable” packaging and labeling, or if the packages and labels were corrected and she could
`
`trust that they were correct.
`
`20.
`
`Defendant Earth Friendly is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Addison, Illinois, and corporate headquarters in Cypress, CA. Earth Friendly
`
`conducts business, including advertising, distributing, and/or selling the ECOS Products,
`
`throughout Missouri, including the County of St. Louis, Missouri, California, and the United
`
`States.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`21.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A)
`
`because this case is a class action where the aggregate claims of all members of the proposed
`
`Classes are in excess of $5,000,000, exclusive of interests and costs, and Plaintiffs, as well as
`
`most members of the proposed Classes, which total more than 100 class members, are citizens of
`states different from the state of Defendants.
`22.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has
`
`sufficient minimum contacts in Missouri or otherwise intentionally did avail themselves of the
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00841-PLC Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/11/22 Page: 9 of 79 PageID #: 9
`
`markets within Missouri, through their sale of the Product in Missouri and to Missouri
`consumers.
`23.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(1) because
`
`Defendant regularly conduct business throughout this District, and a substantial part of the events
`and/or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this District.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`24.
`
`In recent years, consumers have become increasingly concerned about using
`
`household cleaning products that are safe for humans, animals, and the environment. Consumers
`
`have poured billions of dollars into the “eco-friendly” and “green” cleaning-products market. In
`
`fact, this market segment is expected to reach over $40 billion by 2025.
`
`25.
`
`In response to consumers’ desire for safe, environmentally friendly, and non-toxic
`
`cleaning products, many companies “greenwash” their products by deceptively claiming that
`
`their cleaning products are safe. Unfortunately, rather than creating the safe and non-toxic
`
`products that consumers desire, many companies, like Earth Friendly, have chosen instead to
`
`“greenwash” their products through deceptive labeling, suggesting and outright stating that their
`
`cleaning products are safe, environmentally friendly, and non-toxic when, in fact, they can cause
`
`harm to humans, animals and/or the environment.
`
`The Federal Trade Commission “Green Guides”
`
`26.
`
`Recognizing this problem, the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”)
`
`created the “Green Guides” to help companies avoid making misleading and deceptive claims.2
`
`The Green Guides specifically address the use of the term “non-toxic” in the marketing of a
`
`product, stating, “A non-toxic claim likely conveys that a product, package, or service is non-
`
`
`2 See generally 16 C.F.R. § 260 – Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00841-PLC Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/11/22 Page: 10 of 79 PageID #: 10
`
`toxic both for humans and for the environment generally.”3 Accordingly, “[i]t is deceptive to
`
`misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product, package or service is non-toxic. Non-
`
`toxic claims should be clearly and prominently qualified to the extent necessary to avoid
`
`deception.”4
`
`27.
`
`Indeed, in commenting on the Green Guides, the Environmental Protection
`
`Agency (“EPA”) “believes that marketers will ‘rarely, if ever, be able to adequately qualify
`
`and substantiate such a claim of ‘non-toxic’ in a manner that will be clearly understood by
`consumers.’” (emphasis added).5
`The EPA further explained: [A] “non-toxic” claim conveys that a product is non-
`toxic for both humans and for the environment generally. Demonstrating a lack
`of toxicity in a generic sense involves testing for a broad array of endpoints (e.g.,
`acute toxicity, carcinogenicity and other chronic effects, developmental and
`reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, sensitization, etc.) across a variety of species.
`It is highly unlikely that the typical consumer product will have been subjected to
`this degree of testing with a resulting finding of “no adverse effect” for each of
`the endpoints evaluated.6
`28.
`“According to the EPA, this inference might prevent consumers from taking
`necessary precautions in handling a product.”7
`
`
`
`3 16 C.F.R. § 260.10(b).
`4 16 C.F.R. § 260.10(a).
`5 EPA Comments on Proposed Revisions to Green Guides (2010) (available at
`https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/guides-use-environmental-
`marketing-claims-project-no.p954501-00288%C2%A0/00288-57070.pdf).
`6 Id. Fed. Trade Comm’n, The Green Guide Statement and Business Purpose (2012) (available
`at https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-issues-revised-green-
`guides/greenguidesstatement.pdf) (“Similarly, CU suggested that because ‘non-toxic’ claims are
`so difficult to substantiate and for consumers to verify, the marketplace would be better served
`with ‘specific claims of how a product contains less toxic or no toxic materials rather than using
`a ‘non-toxic’ claim.’”).
`7 Id.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00841-PLC Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/11/22 Page: 11 of 79 PageID #: 11
`
`29.
`
`The Green Guides also provide examples of marketing claims in order to “provide
`
`the Commission’s views on how reasonable consumers likely interpret certain claims.”8 The
`FTC provided the following relevant example:9
`A marketer advertises a cleaning product as “essentially non-toxic” and
`“practically non-toxic.” The advertisement likely conveys that the product
`does not pose any risk to humans or the environment, including household
`pets. If the cleaning product poses no risks to humans but is toxic to the
`environment, the claims would be deceptive. (Emphasis added).
`
`30.
`
`This example demonstrates that even when “non-toxic” claims are qualified by
`
`such terms as “essentially” or “practically,” they are nonetheless construed by reasonable
`
`consumers as “not pos[ing] any risk to humans or the environment, including household pets.”
`
`Thus, broad and unqualified non-toxic claims, such as the ones present on the Products, would
`
`even more strongly convey the meaning that the Products do not pose any risk of harm to
`humans, animals, or the environment.
`In addressing “General Environmental Benefit Claims,” the Green Guides state:
`31.
`(a) It is deceptive to misrepresent, directly or by implication, that a product,
`package, or service offers a general environmental benefit.
`
`(b) Unqualified general environmental benefit claims are difficult to interpret and
`likely convey a wide range of meanings. In many cases, such claims likely
`convey that the product, package, or service has specific and far-reaching
`environmental benefits and may convey that the item or service has no
`negative environmental impact. Because it is highly unlikely that
`marketers can substantiate all reasonable interpretations of these claims,
`marketers should not make unqualified general environmental benefit
`claims.
`
`
`(c) Marketers can qualify general environmental benefit claims to prevent
`deception about the nature of the environmental benefit being asserted. To
`avoid deception, marketers should use clear and prominent qualifying
`language that limits the claim to a specific benefit or benefits. Marketers
`should not imply that any specific benefit is significant if it is, in fact,
`negligible. If a qualified general claim conveys that a product is more
`
`
`8 16 C.F.R. § 260.1(d).
`9 16 C.F.R § 260.10.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00841-PLC Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/11/22 Page: 12 of 79 PageID #: 12
`
`environmentally beneficial overall because of the particular touted benefit(s),
`marketers should analyze trade-offs resulting from the benefit(s) to determine
`if they can substantiate this claim.
`
`
`(d) Even if a marketer explains, and has substantiation for, the product’s specific
`environmental attributes, this explanation will not adequately qualify a general
`environmental benefit claim if the advertisement otherwise implies deceptive
`claims. Therefore, marketers should ensure that the advertisement’s context
`does not imply deceptive environmental claims.
`
`16 C.F.R. § 260.4 (emphasis added).
`
`The National Advertising Division of the Better Business Bureau
`
`32.
`
`The National Advertising Division (“NAD”) is the investigative unit of the Better
`
`Business Bureau. The NAD is charged with monitoring and evaluating the truth and accuracy of
`
`advertisements directed toward consumers. As relevant here, the NAD recently evaluated a
`
`similar cleaning product, Windex, which was labeled as “Non-Toxic.”10 As a result of its
`
`evaluation, on March 24, 2020, the NAD recommended that S.C. Johnson & Son, the company
`
`that manufactures and sells Windex, “discontinue the claim ‘non-toxic’ on the package labeling
`
`33.
`
`of its Windex Vinegar Glass Cleaner.”11
`In explaining its decision, the NAD stated:
`After considering the guidance offered by the Federal Trade Commission’s
`Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims (“Green Guides”) and
`FTC precedent, NAD determined that the term “non-toxic,” as used on the label
`of Windex Vinegar Glass Cleaner, reasonably conveys a message that the
`product will not harm people (including small children), common pets, or the
`environment. Importantly, NAD noted that a reasonable consumer’s
`understanding of the concept of “will not harm” is not limited to death, but
`also various types of temporary physical illness, such as vomiting, rash, and
`gastrointestinal upset.12
`
`
`10 https://bbbprograms.org/programs/all-programs/national-advertising-division/nad-sc-johnson-
`windex-vinegar-glass-cleaner-claim
`11 Id.
`12 Id. (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00841-PLC Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/11/22 Page: 13 of 79 PageID #: 13
`
`34.
`
`Even though S.C. Johnson & Son had provided the NAD with substantiation for
`
`the non-toxic claim, the NAD determined that “the evidence fell short of providing the
`
`conclusive assessment of toxicity necessary to support a ‘non-toxic’ claim.” Thus, the NAD
`recommended that S.C. Johnson & Son discontinue the claim “non-toxic.”13
`35.
`S.C. Johnson & Son appealed the NAD’s decision to the National Advertising
`
`Review Board (“NARB”), which is the appellate body of the Better Business Bureau’s self-
`regulation program.14
`36.
`However, on August 6, 2020, the NARB agreed with the NAD’s decision and
`
`recommended that S.C. Johnson & Son discontinue the non-toxic claim on the labeling of its
`
`Windex product.15 The NARB “express[ed] concern that an unqualified non-toxic claim will
`
`lead reasonable consumers to conclude not only that a misused cleaning product does not pose a
`
`risk of death or serious consequences, but also that product misuse poses no health risks, even
`those that are not severe or are more transient in nature.”16
`37.
`Because of concerns about safety, consumers have increasingly sought out safe
`
`and non-toxic household cleaning products, the sales of which have surged in recent years.
`
`Unfortunately, rather than providing consumers with true “non-toxic” and safe products, Earth
`
`Friendly has advertised, labeled, and sold products that are not “non-toxic” or safe and that can
`cause harm to humans, animals, and the environment.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13 Id.
`14 https://bbbprograms.org/media-center/newsroom/narb-recommends-s.c.-johnson-discontinue-
`unqualified-non-toxic-claim-on-windex-vinegar-glass-cleaner
`15 Id.
`16 Id. (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00841-PLC Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/11/22 Page: 14 of 79 PageID #: 14
`
`Earth Friendly’s False and Misleading Representations
`
`38.
`
`Earth Friendly has misrepresented that the ECOS Products are “non-toxic,”
`
`“safer,” “made without known carcinogens, reproductive toxins, or endocrine disruptors,”
`
`“climate positive,” “Earth Friendly,” and/or “sustainable” throughout the Class Period.
`
`39.
`
`Earth Friendly’s marketing materials are replete with statements that the Products
`
`are non-toxic, safe, and environmentally friendly.
`
`40.
`
`The labeling for the Products claims that they are “non-toxic,” “safer,” “made
`
`without known carcinogens, reproductive toxins, or endocrine disruptors,” “climate positive,”
`
`“Earth Friendly,” and/or “sustainable.”
`
`41.
`
`The Products “non-toxic,” “safer,” and environmentally-friendly labels are
`
`accompanied by the following additional labeling claims regarding the Products:
`
`“Welcome to a safer clean.”
`
`“Made Without 1-4 Dioxane”
`
`“Our plant-powered products are non-toxic and safer for you, your home and our
`planet because we believe clean shouldn’t mean spreading toxins all over your
`home. It’s been our ECOS® promise for over 50 years.”
`
`“Each bottle contains over 50 years of scientific passion and plant-powered
`goodness.”
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00841-PLC Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/11/22 Page: 15 of 79 PageID #: 15
`
`HYP OALLERGENIC
`
`ECOS.
`Am Tae
`TU ndry Detergent
`
`Non-Toxic
`
`
`:
`wy
`sa
`:
`
`v aesxe|US 0=eS|== lo
`
`
`|
`
`= 00
`
`1 LOAD
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00841-PLC Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/11/22 Page: 16 of 79 PageID #: 16
`
`Ourplant-powered products are non-toxic and safer for
`you, your home and our planet, because webelieve clean
`shouldn’t mean spreading toxinsall over your home.
`EUCLA a mS CTSRCM(eelIN [1c
`i e
`aoe
`yas Pesan
`SUSTAINABLE
`SS puedate
`Made without
`Plant-powered to
`Madein carbon
`known carcinogens,
`Peleeet-laBlolsoF
`neutral, water neutral
`reprod
`se toxins or
`leaving them softer,
`and zero waste
`
`endocrine disruptors brightening colors and|facilities using 100%
`whitening whites.
`aanCle)Risk)
`
`ONLY 6 INGREDIENTS
`HOW 10 USE
`Alittle goes a long with our
`
`ultra-concentrated formula.Suitable for
`a Water
`rl
`cold and hot water. Follow garment
`2. Cocamidopropyl Betaine(plant-derived
`careae
`¥
`surfactant)
`T: Pour directly onto stain.
`3. Sodium Coco-Sulfate (plant-derived surfactant)
`Rubighlight “3=aseel:
`4,CocamidopropylamineOxide(plant-derived
`surfactant)
`1oz. per HEjesterand2 02. per
`5. Phenoxyethanol(preservative)
`standard load.
`6. Methylisothiazolinone(preservative)
`HEAVY SOILED:2 oz. per HE load
`To learn more about what's IN and OUTof our
`and3 oz. per standard load.
`products, please visit us at e¢cos.com/saferchoice
`HAND WASH:Use one teaspoon.
`
`4
`
`
` ECOS.|WELCOME 10 A SAFER CLEAN
` om
`and readily biodegradable. Famity owned and operated in CA, IL. NJ and WA.
`
`Safely store out of children’s reach.
`+ Contains naturalingredients; color and body
`may vary. 100% Vegan formula
`+ Formulais greywater & septic tank safe
`
`Earth FriendlyProducts, 11150 Hope Street. Cypress,CA 90630
`MAJORITY
`1,800.335.EC0S| ecos.com | Gecoscleans
`WOMEN
`OWNED 6 © © Co
`
`|
`
`j
`
`il9174
`
`||
`
`
`
`16
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00841-PLC Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/11/22 Page: 17 of 79 PageID #: 17
`
`42.
`
`In addition, Earth Friendly makes numerous statements in its advertisements and
`
`social media that the Products are “non-toxic,” “safer,” “made without known carcinogens,
`
`reproductive toxins, or endocrine disruptors,” “climate positive,” “Earth Friendly,” and/or
`
`“sustainable.”
`
`43.
`
`Finally, during the Class Period, Earth Friendly’s website, www.ecos.com,
`
`contained the following statements that the Products are “non-toxic,” “safer,” and/or
`
`environmentally-friendly:
`
`• “Cleaning power found in nature: You wouldn’t know it by looking at it, but a
`simple coconut carries powerful cleaning properties – while also being a highly
`renewable resource. It’s the kind of criteria we apply to all of our ingredients through
`cutting edge clean chemistry, so you can be confident that every ECOS product is
`safer for you, and safer for the environment, too.
`
`• “Invite Climate Positive Cleaning Into Your Home: At ECOS, every footprint
`counts. From where we place our factories to how our formulas react with the
`environment, we pay careful attention to the entire life cycle of everything we make.
`It’s how we’ve managed to become a Climate Positive company. Rest assured that
`when you use an ECOS product, you’re making a positive contribution to our planet.”
`
`• “Formulated for Human Kindness: We’ve been at the forefront of clean, green
`chemistry for over 50 years. That means not only is every ingredient we use
`analyzed and tested for safety and sustainability; we’re also constantly
`researching new ways to harness the cleaning power found in nature. Rest
`assured that every ECOS product is scientifically proven to offer a thorough clean,
`while also protecting the things you care about most.”
`
`• “Can conscious cleaning help clean up the earth? Absolutely. We’ve spent five
`decades perfecting clean manufacturing and sustainable business practices, so that
`what’s good for you is positive for the planet, too. We see every aspect of our
`business as an opportunity to make our planet a little greener – and there’s no
`step too small along the way.”
`
`• “Journey to a Climate Positive Clean: We believe that saving the planet starts with
`small acts. That every action, big or small, has the power to lead to a more sustainable
`world. That’s why we’re intentional in every step of our business, from where a
`product is sourced, to how it’s made, to where it ends up, because we don’t just want
`to be neutral – we’re here to leave a positive impact on the planet we all call
`home.”
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case: 4:22-cv-00841-PLC Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/11/22 Page: 18 of 79 PageID #: 18
`
`• “Sustainable chemistry is circular chemistry. Sustainable