Slaten v. Christian Dior Perfumes, LLC.

Background

Alexis Slaten alleged that Christian Dior, Inc. misleadingly advertised the sun-protection benefits of its foundation products. She alleged that the Dior Forever Foundation packaging stated “24H” or “24H wear” near statements that the product was “with sunscreen,” while the products’ sun protection lasted no more than two hours and the drug-facts panel instructed consumers to reapply at least every two hours. She claimed she would not have purchased the product, or would have paid less, if she had known the labeling was misleading.

Slaten asserted claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law, along with fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment claims. She sought relief for herself and proposed nationwide and California classes. She also challenged labels for the Dior Forever Skin Glow Foundation and other products with both sun-protection and longer-than-two-hour duration claims, although she had not purchased those products.

Express Preemption

Dior argued that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempted Slaten’s state-law claims. The court denied dismissal on this ground. It reasoned that federal regulations require sunscreen labels to contain certain information, including an instruction to reapply at least every two hours, but do not require or specifically regulate a front-label claim that the product lasts 24 hours. The court also concluded that any state-law requirement not to use false or misleading labeling would be identical to the federal requirement barring false or misleading labeling, rather than an additional or different requirement.

The court rejected Dior’s argument that the Food and Drug Administration’s treatment of cosmetic products with sunscreen resolved the issue. In the court’s view, the cited federal materials addressed drug-facts labeling and did not establish that 24-hour duration claims on the front of the package were permissible or that consumers could not be misled by them.

California Consumer-Protection and Fraud Claims

The court held that Slaten plausibly alleged that reasonable consumers could interpret “24H” as applying to the product’s sunscreen benefits as well as its cosmetic coverage. The court considered the placement of “24H” near “with sunscreen” and concluded that the alleged interpretation was not unreasonable as a matter of law. The drug-facts instruction to reapply after two hours did not eliminate the alleged deception at the pleading stage because consumers are not necessarily required to look past a potentially misleading front-label statement to find corrective information elsewhere on the package.

The court also held that Slaten satisfied the heightened pleading rule for claims based on fraud by alleging why the statements were allegedly false: the sun protection lasted only two hours. It therefore denied the motion to dismiss the claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and False Advertising Law, and the unfair and fraudulent theories under the Unfair Competition Law.

Claims Based on Products Slaten Did Not Buy

The court granted dismissal of Slaten’s claims based on products she did not purchase. A consumer may sometimes assert claims involving unpurchased products when the purchased and unpurchased products and their alleged misrepresentations are substantially similar. But Slaten did not quote or provide a photograph of the Dior Forever Skin Glow Foundation’s label, and she did not identify the labels for the other products. The court therefore could not evaluate whether the products, claims, and alleged injuries were sufficiently similar to the product she bought.

Injunctive Relief

The court denied dismissal of Slaten’s request for injunctive relief. It held that, accepting her allegations and drawing reasonable inferences in her favor, she had shown a sufficiently concrete future risk. She alleged that she would likely buy Dior’s products again if they were reformulated or relabeled without the misleading 24-hour sunscreen claims. The court reasoned that future labeling or formulation changes might still leave her unable to determine whether the sun-protection claims were accurate.

Disposition

The court granted Dior’s motion to dismiss as to Slaten’s claims based on products she did not buy; those claims were dismissed with leave to amend. The court otherwise denied the motion as to Slaten’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation claims. The opinion does not separately state a disposition for the unjust-enrichment claim. Slaten was permitted to file an amended complaint by June 2, 2023.