Dr. Squatch is well-known for its male-focused personal care products. According to the complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by plaintiff Jaime Napolitano, the lawsuit alleges that Dr. Squatch’s use of “natural” labeling goes against consumer expectations because many of the ingredients in its products are synthetic.
The complaint asserts, “The products are ‘misbranded’ and misleading, because despite the labeling and marketing as ‘Men’s Natural Shampoo’ and ‘Men’s Natural Conditioner,’ at least fifteen of the twenty-four ingredients are not ‘natural,’ as this term is understood by consumers.”
In addition, the complaint highlights the growing consumer demand for natural personal care products, a market that exceeds $50 billion in annual sales and grows twice the rate of traditional products. This rising trend is attributed to consumers’ perception that natural products are safer for personal health and the environment.
A Nielsen report cited in the complaint states, “Whether personal care products contain mostly natural ingredients is very important to almost half of the public.”
Dr. Squatch’s labeling claims appear to appeal directly to this consumer preference. However, the plaintiff alleges that these claims are misleading, as Dr. Squatch’s products contain numerous ingredients that have undergone synthetic processing.
For example, decyl glucoside and coco-glucoside, two prominent product ingredients, are synthetic and produced by chemical reactions involving glucose and coconut alcohol.
Defining “natural” in personal care products
A central point in the lawsuit is the definition of “natural” in personal care products, an issue that has plagued the industry for years due to the lack of a standardized definition. According to the complaint, “synthetic” refers to any ingredient chemically altered from its natural state, while “natural” refers to substances that remain in their original form.
The USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) has issued guidelines on what qualifies as “natural”, which includes substances that are not chemically modified or are derived through natural biological processes. However, the US FDA has not defined the term “natural”, nor has the agency established a regulatory definition for this term in cosmetic labeling.
“The second ingredient of decyl glucoside is not natural, because it is made by chemical condensation with glucose polymers,” the lawsuit claims. Other ingredients in Dr. Squatch’s products, including xanthan gum, citric acid, and sodium benzoate, are similarly labeled synthetic due to the industrial processes involved in their production.
The complaint argues, “This processing would suggest that it be classified as synthetic,” pointing to consumer expectations that natural products avoid extensive chemical processing.
Legal perspectives and precedents
From a legal standpoint, these types of consumer protection and false advertising claims around terms like “natural” are not new. According to Kelly Bonner, an associate attorney at Duane Morris LLP, “From a legal perspective, we’ve seen these kinds of consumer protection, false advertising claims before over what it means for beauty products to claim to be ‘clean’, ‘natural’ or ‘100% natural’ with varying levels of success.
Bonner further explained that past court decisions have set differing precedents depending on the specifics of the claims and disclosures. “On the one hand, you have cases like last year’s Finster decision out of the Northern District of New York, in which the court granted a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s class action claims of consumer deception in connection with the ‘Clean at Sephora’ program because the court concluded that the retailer very clearly disclosed the program’s criteria, in which ‘clean’ did not mean all-natural or free from synthetic ingredients,” she said.
“Conversely, you have the District of Minnesota’s decision in Boyd late this September, in which the court allowed plaintiffs’ claims of statutory consumer fraud and common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty and unjust enrichment, to proceed to discovery as to whether a reasonable consumer could be misled by the retailer’s ‘clean’ claims,” she added.
She highlighted that there are currently no concrete definitions for terms like “clean” or “natural” in regulatory guidelines. “Claims like clean or natural aren’t defined by MoCRA, or the FTC’s Green Guides.” As a result, “questions will remain over how companies are using terms like ‘clean’ and ‘natural,’ and whether or not a reasonable consumer could find them misleading in light of the products’ ingredients,” she said, concluding that “we can expect to see more of these ‘clean claim’ cases.”
Implications for personal care manufacturers
This lawsuit is the latest filing emphasizing the legal and reputational risks of making natural claims. According to the Environmental Working Group, “no category of consumer products is subject to less government oversight than cosmetics and other personal care products. Still, manufacturers may need to adopt more explicit labeling practices as consumers become more concerned with ingredient transparency.
Legal experts caution that as consumer expectations for natural products evolve, so will the scrutiny around labeling practices. One study cited in the complaint indicated that consumers are willing to pay at least 10% more for products labeled as natural.
By positioning products as “natural”, brands may charge a premium, increasing the potential for legal disputes if products do not meet consumer expectations for natural ingredients.
“As a result of the false and misleading representations, the Products are sold at a premium price,” the complaint claimed, adding that similar products not labeled as “natural” are typically priced lower.
CosmeticsDesign contacted Dr. Squatch for a response, but no comment was available prior to publication.
