MEZA v. Coty, Inc.

Background

Antoinette Meza filed a putative class action against Coty, Inc. concerning two foundation products: CoverGirl Extreme 3-in-1 Foundation and Rimmel Lasting Finish 25HR Foundation. The products displayed “24 HR” or “25 HR” claims, as well as sun-protection-factor statements. Meza alleged that consumers could understand those claims, when viewed with the products’ sun-protection labeling, to mean that the products provided 24 or 25 hours of sun protection without reapplication. The drug-facts labels instead instructed users to “reapply at least every 2 hours.”

Meza asserted claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, along with claims for fraud and unjust enrichment. Coty moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint adequately states a legally viable claim, and Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction, including standing.

Standing and Unpurchased Products

The court granted Coty’s motion to dismiss Meza’s claims for injunctive relief, with leave to amend. Meza alleged that she wanted to buy Coty products in the future if they were properly labeled, but the court found that she had not plausibly alleged a sufficient risk of being harmed again by the allegedly misleading labeling. The court explained that a plaintiff seeking an injunction must allege a likely future injury, such as being unable to rely on the product’s labeling in the future.

The court also granted Coty’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion concerning the CoverGirl Outlast Active foundation, with leave to amend. Meza had not provided illustrations or descriptions sufficient for the court to determine whether that product was substantially similar to the other products. The court denied the Rule 12(b)(1) motion concerning the CoverGirl Outlast 3-in-1 foundation and the Rimmel Lasting Finish foundation, allowing the state-law claims based on those products to proceed at this stage.

Federal Preemption

The court rejected Coty’s arguments that Meza’s state-law claims were preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Express preemption occurs when federal law bars state requirements that differ from or add to federal requirements. The court reasoned that the federal sunscreen regulations did not require manufacturers to make 24-hour or 25-hour duration claims. If Meza ultimately prevailed, Coty’s federal labeling duties would remain the same, so the state-law claims would not impose an additional or different requirement.

The court also rejected Coty’s implied-preemption argument. Although the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act generally bars private enforcement of that statute, the court found that Meza was suing under California laws for allegedly misleading conduct, not attempting to enforce the federal statute directly. The court concluded that her claims could proceed as state-law claims paralleling federal safety requirements.

Fraud and Consumer-Protection Claims

The court held that Meza satisfied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires fraud allegations to describe the misconduct with particularity, including the who, what, when, where, and how. The complaint identified Coty as the alleged wrongdoer, the “24 HR” and “25 HR” statements as the allegedly deceptive representations, the products’ front labels as the location, the 2018–2022 purchase period as the relevant time, and the alleged deception as suggesting that the products provided that level of sun protection despite the two-hour reapplication instruction. The court therefore denied dismissal on that basis.

The court applied California’s reasonable-consumer test to the state consumer-protection claims. That test asks whether a significant portion of reasonable consumers could be misled, rather than whether a few consumers might misunderstand a label unreasonably.

For the Rimmel product, the court granted Coty’s motion to dismiss the deceptive-labeling claims. The “25 HR” statement appeared above “HYDRATION BOOST,” while the separate “SPF 20” statement appeared lower on the label in different styling. The court found that interpreting the “25 HR” statement as referring to 25 hours of sun protection was unreasonable because the label did not sufficiently connect that statement to the SPF claim.

For the CoverGirl product, the court denied Coty’s motion to dismiss the claims concerning the “24 HR” statement. The front label placed “24 HR,” “Full Coverage,” “SPF 18,” “Octinoxate Sunscreen,” and “Liquid Foundation” in descending order. The court found that a reasonable consumer could interpret those statements together as promising 24 hours of full-coverage sun protection at SPF 18. The reapplication instruction on the back label did not resolve the claim as a matter of law, particularly because Meza alleged that the instruction was hidden beneath a sticker.

Other Relief and Disposition

The court denied Coty’s request to dismiss Meza’s restitution claim as premature. It also denied dismissal of the unjust-enrichment claim. Although California does not recognize unjust enrichment as a standalone cause of action, the court explained that such allegations may be treated as a request for restitution, including as an alternative remedy.

Judge Nathanael Cousins concluded that Coty’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part. The court granted the motion as to Meza’s claims for injunctive relief, claims concerning the CoverGirl Outlast Active foundation, and claims concerning the Rimmel product. It denied the motion as to the CoverGirl product’s durational claims. Meza could file an amended complaint by May 19, 2023, but could not add claims or parties without the court’s permission.