Slaten v. Christian Dior Perfumes, LLC.

Background

Alexis Slaten brought a proposed class action against Christian Dior Perfumes, LLC. She alleged that Dior deceptively labeled and advertised the sun-protection benefits of certain cosmetic products. Slaten alleged that she bought Dior’s Forever Foundation for several years based on its labeling and believed the product would provide both cosmetic coverage and sun protection for 24 hours. She alleged that the sunscreen protection lasted no more than two hours and that the back label directed users to reapply the product at least every two hours.

Slaten also challenged the packaging for Dior’s Forever Skin Glow Foundation, which she did not purchase. She alleged that its labeling was substantially similar to the labeling on the Forever Foundation.

Legal standard and prior ruling

California consumer-protection false-labeling claims require a plaintiff to plausibly allege that members of the public are likely to be deceived. The relevant test asks whether a significant portion of reasonable consumers could be misled.

In an earlier order, the court had concluded that Slaten plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer could believe the Forever Foundation’s sunscreen benefits lasted 24 hours. The court had also concluded that the drug-facts panel on the back label could not, as a matter of law, cure a misleading front label. After that ruling, the Ninth Circuit decided McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co. Dior argued that McGinity required dismissal, and the court agreed.

The front label

The court explained that McGinity permits a court to consider the entire product label when the front-label statement is ambiguous. A front-label claim is ambiguous when it could have multiple meanings, some of which would not deceive a reasonable consumer. If the front label is unambiguously misleading, however, the rest of the label cannot cure the problem.

The court held that the Forever Foundation’s front label was ambiguous about whether “24H” applied only to the cosmetic foundation or also to the product’s sunscreen benefits. The label stated: “TRANSFER-PROOF - 24H FOUNDATION,” followed by “WITH SUNSCREEN” and “BROAD SPECTRUM SPF 15.” The court accepted Slaten’s interpretation that a consumer could understand “24H” to apply to both the cosmetic and sunscreen benefits, but also found that a reasonable consumer could understand the label to say that the foundation lasted 24 hours and separately contained sunscreen.

The back label

Because the front label was ambiguous, the court considered the back label. The drug-facts panel identified sunscreen as the purpose of the product’s active ingredients and instructed users to reapply the product at least every two hours. The court held that the back label resolved the front label’s ambiguity. After reviewing the back label, the court concluded that no reasonable consumer would believe that “24H” applied to the product’s sunscreen protection.

The court therefore held that Slaten failed to plausibly allege that the Forever Foundation’s labels were false or misleading to reasonable consumers.

Other product

The court held that Slaten had standing to assert class claims concerning the Forever Skin Glow Foundation even though she did not buy that product. The court found the two products substantially similar because, under Slaten’s theory, both represented that they would provide sun protection for longer than two hours and had no material labeling distinction relevant to the analysis. The court applied the same reasoning to both products.

Disposition

The court granted Dior’s motion to dismiss. The conclusion states that, because McGinity was decided after the amended complaint was filed, Slaten was granted leave to amend and any amended complaint had to be filed within 20 days of the order. The order states that it disposes of Docket No. 54. However, the opening portion of the opinion says the motion was granted “without leave to amend,” creating a direct inconsistency within the order.