Conopco Can’t Shake “X% Naturally Derived” Mislabeling Suit

/in

A proposed class action challenging “X% Naturally Derived” label claims on Conopco’s “Love Beauty & Planet,” “Dove Men + Care,” and “babyDove” brand shampoos, conditioners, and other bath products can move forward, the California Northern District Court ruled on November 26, 2025.

The suit alleges that the provided percentages, which vary by product, mislead customers because they encompass synthetic industrial chemicals.  According to the plaintiffs, the percentages are calculated using a complex, proprietary, and arbitrary formula developed by the British Standards Institute (BSI) known as ISO 16128, which is not intended for marketing purposes.

In its order, the court concluded that consumers could plausibly read “naturally derived” to mean “non-synthetic.”  Although Conopco pointed to clarifying information on the products’ back labels, the court ruled that it was not necessary to consider the back labels because the statement on the front was plausibly unambiguous.  If consumers understand naturally derived as non-synthetic, “the back-label definition is essentially ‘fine print’ that undercuts the statements on the front labels,” the order states.

The court also held that the plaintiffs’ allegations were sufficiently detailed to survive dismissal, despite their reliance on allegations based on information and belief.

Dismissed Claims

Other claims were dismissed without prejudice, including the plaintiffs’ argument that Conopco’s omission of a definition of naturally derived on the front label could serve as a separate basis for its false advertising claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

The court held that this omission theory was insufficiently pled because it was not set forth in the complaint.  Moreover, the plaintiffs failed to explain why the alleged omission “‘relates to an unreasonable safety hazard’ or is ‘material’ and ‘central to the product’s function,’” the order states.

The court also dismissed the plaintiffs’ common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims.  Under California’s economic loss rule, those torts require that the plaintiffs allege losses in addition to economic loss, and they have not done so, the court held.

The case is Kent v. Conopco, Inc., No. 25-cv-03660 (N.D. Cal.), filed Apr. 25, 2025.  Plaintiffs have until January 7, 2026, to file an amended complaint.