Zimmerman v. L'Oreal USA, Inc.

Background

Lynn Zimmerman filed a proposed class action against L’Oréal USA, Inc. She alleged that L’Oréal’s Infallible Fresh Wear 24HR Foundation was misleadingly labeled with statements including “Up to 24HR Breathable Texture,” “Up to 24H Fresh Wear,” and “Sunscreen Broad Spectrum SPF 25.” According to the complaint, the product’s sunscreen protection lasted only two hours, and the instructions to reapply sunscreen were underneath a peel-back sticker on the back label. Zimmerman alleged that she would not have bought the foundation, or would have paid less for it, had she known it did not provide 24 hours of sunscreen protection.

Zimmerman also challenged labels for products she did not purchase, including L’Oréal Pro-Glow Foundation and Lancôme Teint Idôle Ultra 24H Long Wear Matte Foundation. She asserted claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, along with claims for unjust enrichment and common-law fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. L’Oréal moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim, and Rule 12(b)(1), which concerns subject-matter jurisdiction.

Standing for Unpurchased Products

The court held that Zimmerman lacked standing to pursue claims concerning the two specifically identified products she did not purchase. For standing purposes, the court considered whether the purchased and unpurchased products and the alleged consumer injuries were substantially similar. It found that the allegedly misleading statements differed among the products and that determining whether consumers would be misled required a product-specific analysis.

The court also found that Zimmerman had not established standing for unidentified unpurchased products because the complaint did not provide images or detailed descriptions of their labels. The court therefore granted L’Oréal’s motion to dismiss claims concerning the identified unpurchased products without leave to amend and granted the motion to dismiss claims concerning unidentified unpurchased products with leave to amend.

Standing for Injunctive Relief

L’Oréal argued that Zimmerman could not seek an injunction because she knew that sunscreen had to be reapplied every two hours and therefore could not plausibly show a risk of future harm. The court rejected that argument. At the pleading stage, it accepted Zimmerman’s allegations that she continued to want to buy cosmetic products marketed by L’Oréal and would likely purchase products making 24-hour sunscreen claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss on this ground.

Federal Preemption

L’Oréal argued that the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempted Zimmerman’s state-law claims. Federal preemption can bar state requirements that differ from or add to federal requirements. The court rejected L’Oréal’s argument because federal law did not require manufacturers to use the challenged durational statements on the front labels. The court also reasoned that requiring removal of allegedly misleading statements would be consistent with the federal prohibition on false or misleading drug labeling. The court denied the motion to dismiss on this basis.

Reasonable Consumer Test

L’Oréal argued that a reasonable consumer would understand the 24-hour statements to concern only cosmetic benefits and would read the back label’s two-hour reapplication instruction. The court disagreed that this issue could be resolved as a matter of law at the pleading stage. It found that the front-label statements were ambiguous and that the reapplication instructions were hidden under a peel-back sticker rather than immediately visible. The court concluded that Zimmerman plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer could be deceived and denied the motion to dismiss on this basis.

Disposition

Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted in part and denied in part L’Oréal’s motion to dismiss. Claims based on the identified unpurchased products were dismissed without leave to amend. Claims based on unidentified unpurchased products were dismissed with leave to amend, and Zimmerman was permitted to file an amended complaint within 21 days. The court also granted L’Oréal’s request for judicial notice of the product labels referenced in the complaint but denied its request for judicial notice of certain FDA webpages, an administrative order, and a dictionary definition.