Perez v. Bath & Body Works, LLC

Background

Carmen Perez alleged that Bath & Body Works, LLC and Bath & Body Works, Inc. made misleading statements about products containing hyaluronic acid. The challenged products included body creams, hand creams, body wash, body gel lotion, and body polish. Perez alleged that the products’ packaging, website, and store personnel represented that hyaluronic acid could attract and retain up to 1,000 times its weight in water, make skin look smoother and more supple, instantly lock in moisture after clinical testing, immediately hydrate skin, and was a “water loving molecule.”

Perez alleged that scientific literature showed hyaluronic acid retained only a small amount of water. She bought a Hyaluronic Acid Hydrating Body Cream in approximately February or March 2019 and alleged that she relied on the product’s statements and a store employee’s repetition of them. She asserted claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law, along with fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. She also sought to represent a California class of purchasers.

Judicial notice

The court denied Perez’s request for judicial notice of the entire proceeding in a separate hyaluronic-acid case. The court found the request too broad and nonspecific and concluded that the materials would not assist in deciding this motion to dismiss.

Motion to strike

The court granted Bath & Body Works’ motion to strike references to the statement that the products “instantly replenish moisture for smooth, hydrated skin.” Perez did not oppose this request, and the court found that the statement did not appear on any relevant product. The court granted this relief without leave to amend and stated that no causes of action could proceed as to Claim 2.

California consumer-protection claims

The court denied the motion to dismiss the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law claims as to Claims 1 and 3. Perez alleged specific scientific literature supporting her assertion that the statement that hyaluronic acid attracts and retains up to 1,000 times its weight in water was actually false. The court held that these allegations were sufficient at the pleading stage even though Perez had not tested Bath & Body Works’ products specifically, because the statements concerned hyaluronic acid itself.

The court granted the motion to dismiss these consumer-protection claims without leave to amend as to Claim 4, the statement that the product was “clinically tested to instantly lock in moisture.” The court characterized this as a claim that the statement lacked supporting clinical testing. Under California law, the court explained, private plaintiffs may not pursue a claim based only on a lack of substantiation.

The court also granted the motion to dismiss these claims without leave to amend as to Claims 5 and 6. It held that “fast-absorbing formula immediately hydrates” and “hyaluronic acid is a water loving molecule” were subjective advertising opinions, known as puffery, rather than objectively verifiable factual statements.

Fraud and negligent misrepresentation

The court denied the motion to dismiss Perez’s fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims as to Claims 1 and 3. It found that her allegations of actual falsity, Bath & Body Works’ knowledge and intent, and Perez’s reliance were sufficient at the pleading stage. In particular, Perez alleged that she read the specific statements on the product, confirmed them with a store employee, believed the product had the advertised properties, and bought it based on those representations.

The court granted the motion to dismiss the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims without leave to amend as to Claims 4 through 6. The court reasoned that Claims 4 through 6 could not satisfy the requirement of a false statement because Claim 4 was an impermissible lack-of-substantiation theory and Claims 5 and 6 were puffery.

Unjust enrichment and equitable relief

The court denied the motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim as to Claims 1 and 3 and granted it without leave to amend as to Claims 4 through 6. The court stated that the unjust enrichment claim could proceed to the same extent as Perez’s fraud claim.

The court denied the motion to dismiss Perez’s claims for equitable monetary relief under the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and unjust enrichment theory. It held that those restitution claims could proceed at the pleading stage, although it noted that the issue could be reconsidered later.

Standing

Standing is the legal requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury connected to the defendant’s conduct that a court can remedy. The court granted the motion to dismiss claims involving products Perez did not purchase, with leave to amend. Perez had bought only the body cream, and the court found that alleging the other products contained hyaluronic acid and carried Claim 1 did not sufficiently establish that the products were substantially similar.

The court also granted the motion to dismiss all claims for injunctive relief for lack of standing, with leave to amend. Perez had alleged a desire to buy products that could improve her skin and other cosmetic products from Bath & Body Works, but the court found that she had not specifically alleged a desire to buy the challenged products in the future.

Personal jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction is a court’s authority over a particular defendant. The court granted Bath & Body Works, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, with leave to amend. Perez conceded that California did not have general jurisdiction over either defendant. The court found that the complaint did not provide enough facts for specific jurisdiction over Bath & Body Works, Inc., because it did not distinguish that company from Bath & Body Works, LLC and relied on general allegations that the defendants acted as a joint venture, partnership, or common enterprise.

Disposition

The court required Perez to file an amended complaint within 30 days. The order stated that failure to meet the deadline or cure the identified deficiencies would result in dismissal of Perez’s claims with prejudice. The court limited amendment to the defects addressed in the order and barred new claims or parties without express permission from the court.

The order was classified as a procedural order because it resolved a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, which tests pleading sufficiency, standing, and jurisdiction rather than finally deciding the underlying advertising claims.