Locklin v. Strivectin Operating Company, Inc.
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:21-cv-07967
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 8
In Locklin v. Strivectin, Judge Chhabria denied StriVectin’s motion to dismiss claims that its “reef safe” sunscreen label misled consumers.
The ruling allows Martin Locklin’s claims against StriVectin Operating Company, Inc., to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage; it may also affect consumers covered by the proposed nationwide class, which the court did not decide to certify.
What happened
In Locklin v. Strivectin Operating Company, Inc., Martin Locklin alleged that StriVectin’s “REEF SAFE* SUNSCREEN” label was misleading because the sunscreen contained four other chemicals that could harm coral reefs and marine life. He brought claims under California consumer-protection laws and for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment.
The court ruled that Locklin’s allegations were detailed enough to continue. It explained that reasonable consumers could understand “reef safe” to mean the product would not threaten coral reefs, and that fine print identifying only two absent chemicals did not necessarily correct a misleading statement on the front of the package. The court also found that Locklin adequately alleged future interest in buying the product if the label became truthful.
The court denied StriVectin’s motion to dismiss and ordered the company to file an answer within 21 days. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order.
The detailed version
- Locklin v. Strivectin Operating Company, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-07967
- Vince Chhabria
- Mar. 23, 2022
Background
Martin Locklin alleged that he bought a 1.5-ounce bottle of StriVectin’s “Full Screen Clear Finish” sunscreen for $39.00, at least partly because its packaging stated “REEF SAFE* SUNSCREEN.” The asterisk directed consumers to fine print on the back saying that the product did not contain oxybenzone or octinoxate. Locklin alleged that the sunscreen nevertheless contained avobenzone, homosalate, octisalate, and octocrylene, which he said could threaten coral reefs and marine life.
Locklin sought to represent a nationwide class of similar consumers. He asserted claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as common-law claims for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment. StriVectin moved to dismiss each claim.
Court’s analysis
The court applied Rule 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint alleges enough facts to plausibly support relief. Because the claims involved alleged false or misleading advertising, the court also applied Rule 9(b), which requires fraud allegations to identify the circumstances of the alleged misconduct in detail.
The court held that Locklin plausibly alleged violations of California’s consumer-protection laws. The complaint identified the “reef safe” label, the four chemicals allegedly present in the sunscreen, scientific studies concerning their possible effects, and the way sunscreen can enter the ocean. Taken together, those allegations could support a finding that the label would mislead a reasonable consumer.
The court rejected StriVectin’s argument that the asterisk and back-label explanation prevented liability. It reasoned that a company cannot make a potentially misleading broad statement on the front of a package and then define that statement narrowly in fine print on the back. The court also rejected StriVectin’s arguments that Locklin had to prove at the pleading stage that the studies definitively established harm or that the chemicals were present at harmful concentrations. Those factual questions were not suitable for resolution on a motion to dismiss.
The court further concluded that Locklin alleged actual falsity rather than merely claiming that StriVectin lacked scientific support for its advertising. It also rejected StriVectin’s standing argument concerning injunctive relief, because Locklin alleged that he would buy the sunscreen again if the “reef safe” claim were true. The court noted that StriVectin did not meaningfully challenge the breach-of-warranty and unjust-enrichment claims beyond repeating its arguments against the statutory claims.
Disposition
The court denied StriVectin’s motion to dismiss. It ordered StriVectin to file an answer within 21 days of the order. Judge Vince Chhabria signed the order. The opinion also warned Locklin’s counsel that future misrepresentations concerning the Hawaii legislation could result in sanctions.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.