Maisel v. S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc.

Background

Elizabeth Maisel brought a proposed class action against S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. involving 14 Ecover cleaning products. She alleged that the products were misleadingly labeled with statements including “Plant-based ingredients,” “With plant-based ingredients,” “Plant-based & mineral ingredients,” and “With plant-based and mineral ingredients.” She also pointed to related statements and imagery, including “Get nature on your side,” renewable-ingredient claims, plant images, and green coloring.

Maisel alleged that the products contained synthetic, non-natural, and highly processed ingredients, including ingredients that did not come from plants or minerals or had been chemically modified. She alleged that reasonable consumers would understand the packaging to mean that the products contained only ingredients from plants or plants and minerals and that those ingredients had not been materially altered through chemical processing. She purchased Ecover Dishwasher Tablets in early 2020 and alleged that she relied on the labels and would not have purchased them had she known the products were allegedly mislabeled.

Her First Amended Complaint asserted five causes of action: violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act; breach of express warranty; and unjust enrichment. She sought to represent a nationwide class and a California subclass.

Judicial Notice and Standing

The court took judicial notice of several Ecover product labels because Maisel did not dispute the authenticity of the label images and the materials could be accurately considered at the motion-to-dismiss stage.

The court rejected SC Johnson’s argument that Maisel lacked constitutional standing. Because she alleged that she bought the dishwasher tablets, relied on the allegedly misleading labels, and would not have bought the product absent the alleged misrepresentations, the court found that she adequately alleged an injury caused by SC Johnson’s conduct.

The court also found statutory standing under the California consumer-protection laws. Maisel alleged that she read and relied on the challenged statements and spent money on a product she otherwise would not have purchased.

The court further held that Maisel sufficiently alleged that the 13 products she did not purchase were substantially similar to the product she bought. The products allegedly shared the same brand, general purpose, plant-based representations, nature-themed imagery, and allegedly misleading effect. The court stated that differences in ingredients and uses could be considered at class certification or summary judgment, but they did not require dismissal at this stage.

The court also found that Maisel adequately alleged standing to seek injunctive relief. She alleged that she wanted to buy the products again if their plant-based representations were true, but could not rely on those representations because she could not determine whether SC Johnson had corrected the formulations. The court accepted those allegations as true for purposes of the motion.

Rule 12(b)(6) Claims

A motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) tests whether the complaint legally states a claim. The court must accept well-pleaded factual allegations as true and decide whether they plausibly support relief. The court also applied Rule 9(b), which requires allegations based on fraud to identify the circumstances of the alleged misconduct with particularity, including the who, what, when, where, and how.

The court held that Maisel satisfied Rule 9(b) for her claims under the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. She identified the purchaser, the purchase’s approximate timing and location, the company that allegedly made the misrepresentations, the challenged label statements, and why she believed the statements were misleading.

The court also held that the allegations plausibly satisfied the reasonable-consumer test. Under that test, the question is whether a significant portion of reasonable consumers could be misled by the packaging. The court considered the challenged statements together with the surrounding language, plant imagery, and green coloring. Although SC Johnson argued that the products did contain some plant-based or mineral ingredients and that the labels did not promise a specific amount, the court concluded that reasonable consumers could plausibly understand the overall packaging to suggest that the products contained only plant-based or plant-and-mineral ingredients. The court stated that consumers are not necessarily expected to look past prominent front-label representations to resolve the alleged deception by examining smaller-print ingredient information.

Express Warranty and Unjust Enrichment

The court denied dismissal of the express-warranty claim. Under California law, a plaintiff must allege that the seller made an affirmation, promise, or description of the goods; that the statement was part of the bargain; and that the warranty was breached. The court held that Maisel’s allegations were sufficient because product-label statements may form part of the bargain and because her warranty theory was based on the same alleged misrepresentations that supported her consumer-protection claims.

The court also denied dismissal of the unjust-enrichment claim. Maisel alleged that consumers paid SC Johnson for the products and that SC Johnson unjustly retained those benefits because they were obtained through misleading representations. The court found those allegations sufficient at the pleading stage.

The court rejected SC Johnson’s argument that the claims seeking equitable relief failed because Maisel had an adequate remedy through damages. The court followed decisions allowing plaintiffs to pursue alternative remedies at the pleading stage and denied dismissal on that ground.

Personal Jurisdiction and Disposition

SC Johnson argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over claims involving proposed non-California class members. The court exercised pendent personal jurisdiction, meaning jurisdiction connected to claims arising from the same core facts as claims already within the court’s jurisdiction. It found that the proposed class claims involved the same products and alleged misrepresentations, with the purchase location as the relevant difference.

The court denied SC Johnson’s motion to dismiss. The case was permitted to proceed, and the court set a case-management conference.