Kent v. Conopco

Background

The plaintiffs brought a putative class action against Conopco, a manufacturer of personal-care products. They challenged labels on shampoos, conditioners, and other bath products sold under the Love Beauty & Planet, Dove Men + Care, and babyDove brands. The front labels stated that specified percentages of the products were “Naturally Derived.” The back labels generally repeated those claims and defined “naturally derived” as including ingredients that were unchanged from nature or retained more than 50% of their original structure after processing.

The plaintiffs alleged that Conopco’s definition relied on ISO 16128, a proprietary standard that permits certain chemically modified ingredients to be treated as naturally derived. They alleged that reasonable consumers would understand “Naturally Derived” to mean that the stated percentage of the product consisted of non-synthetic ingredients, while the products actually contained substantial amounts of synthetic, industrially produced chemicals. They also alleged that some labels identified particular synthetic ingredients as naturally derived and that other products did not identify which ingredients were naturally derived.

The complaint asserted five claims: fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation; a claim under the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act; a claim under California’s False Advertising Law; negligent misrepresentation; and a claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law. The opinion notes that Unilever United States, Inc., another originally named defendant, had already been dismissed.

Conopco’s motion

Conopco moved to dismiss all claims for failure to state a legally sufficient claim. It argued that no reasonable consumer would be deceived by the product labels; that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged an actionable misrepresentation or omission; that the fraud claim lacked sufficient allegations that Conopco knew its statements were false; and that the fraud and negligent-misrepresentation claims were barred by California’s economic-loss rule.

The court applied the ordinary pleading standard requiring factual allegations that make liability plausible. Because several claims sounded in fraud, the court also applied the heightened rule requiring the plaintiffs to identify the alleged misconduct with particularity. The plaintiffs had stipulated that this heightened standard applied to their California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and fraud-prong Unfair Competition Law claims.

Label-based misrepresentation theories

The court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the front-label “X% Naturally Derived” statements would mislead a reasonable consumer. The court found it plausible that a reasonable consumer would understand the statements as making a specific representation about the percentage of non-synthetic ingredients in the products.

Because the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the front labels had a specific and deceptive meaning, the court concluded that it was not appropriate at the dismissal stage to rely on the back-label definitions to defeat the claims. The court also stated that the percentage qualification did not, as a matter of law, prevent consumers from being misled. Even if the back labels were considered, the court found that whether they would correct any misunderstanding created by the front labels presented a factual question.

The court rejected Conopco’s reliance on a prior Northern District of California decision involving similar “naturally derived” and “natural origin” claims. The court did not find that decision’s reasoning persuasive to the extent it treated percentage-based “naturally derived” claims as necessarily ambiguous and requiring consumers to examine the back label.

The court also rejected Conopco’s argument that allegations based on information and belief were insufficient. It held that the plaintiffs could plead facts on information and belief where the relevant product-composition information was proprietary and within Conopco’s control. The court found that the complaint identified the challenged advertising claims and included specific allegations about the ISO 16128 standard and the synthetic ingredients that allegedly made the claims false or misleading. The court further held that the plaintiffs adequately alleged Conopco’s knowledge of falsity based on allegations about Conopco’s use of the standard and its alleged knowledge that the resulting claims were misleading.

As to the Unfair Competition Law claim, the court held that the plaintiffs adequately stated claims under the fraudulent and unlawful prongs because they adequately alleged actionable misrepresentations. The court declined to consider certain arguments about the unfair prong because Conopco had not raised them in its motion.

Omission theories

The court separately dismissed the claims to the extent they were based on alleged omissions. The plaintiffs argued that Conopco should have placed an accurate, non-misleading definition of “naturally derived” and an explanation of the percentage calculation on the front label near the percentage claim.

The court found that this omission theory was not set out in the complaint and that the plaintiffs had not explained how they satisfied the separate requirements governing an omission claim. Those requirements included alleging either an unreasonable safety hazard or a material defect central to the product’s function, along with one of the additional circumstances recognized under California law. The court also found that the plaintiffs had not explained how the federal Green Guides supported their omission theory under the applicable California legal tests. The court therefore dismissed the omission-based portions of Claims Two, Three, and Five with leave to amend.

Economic-loss rule

The court agreed with Conopco that California’s economic-loss rule barred the common-law fraud and negligent-misrepresentation claims as pleaded. The plaintiffs had not alleged losses other than economic losses connected to the products. The court therefore granted the motion as to Claim One, for fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation, and Claim Four, for negligent misrepresentation, and dismissed both claims with leave to amend so the plaintiffs could allege, if they could, non-economic losses.

Disposition

The court granted the motion as to Claims One and Four, and those claims were dismissed with leave to amend. The court also granted the motion in part as to Claims Two, Three, and Five to the extent those claims were based on alleged omissions, and dismissed those portions with leave to amend. In all other respects, the court denied the motion. The court ordered that any amended complaint be filed by January 7, 2026.