McGinity v. The Proctor & Gamble Company

Background

Sean McGinity filed a class-action complaint against The Procter & Gamble Company, referred to as P&G. He alleged that P&G’s “PANTENE PRO-V NATUREFUSION” shampoos and conditioners were deceptively marketed as natural because their packaging used the label “NATURE FUSION” and imagery including an avocado, a vitamin, and a leaf. McGinity alleged that he purchased the products because he wanted personal-care products that were natural and would not have bought them had he known they contained synthetic ingredients.

He asserted claims under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, and the California Unfair Competition Law. He sought an injunction, damages, and restitution on behalf of himself and the class.

P&G’s Motion and Legal Standard

P&G moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint alleges a legally sufficient claim. Because the claims were based on alleged deception, the court also applied the requirement that fraud-related allegations be stated with particularity.

The court applied the “reasonable consumer” test. Under that test, the complaint had to plausibly allege that a significant portion of reasonable consumers could be misled by P&G’s labeling.

Analysis

The court found that McGinity had not plausibly alleged that reasonable consumers would understand “Nature Fusion” to mean that the products contained no synthetic ingredients. The court reasoned that the label suggested a fusion, mixture, or combination of ingredients from nature, rather than the complete absence of synthetic ingredients.

The court also considered a consumer survey cited in the complaint. McGinity alleged that more than 77 percent of surveyed consumers believed the products contained more natural ingredients than artificial ingredients. The court found that this allegation supported the conclusion that consumers understood the products to contain both natural and synthetic ingredients.

The court further relied on the ingredient lists on the back of the packaging. Those lists included avocado oil as well as synthetic ingredients identified in the complaint. The court concluded that the ingredient lists helped prevent consumers from reasonably believing that the products contained no synthetic ingredients.

Finally, the court rejected McGinity’s comparison to cases involving products labeled “Natural.” It found those cases different because P&G used “Nature,” not “Natural,” and because McGinity had not alleged that shampoos and conditioners themselves occur in nature or are byproducts of natural conditions.

Disposition

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted P&G’s motion to dismiss with leave to amend. The court directed McGinity to file an amended complaint within 21 days after the order and directed P&G to respond within 21 days after the filing. The court also granted P&G’s request for judicial notice of its product packaging and terminated the motion docketed as Number 19.