Zimmerman v. L'Oreal USA, Inc.
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:22-cv-07609
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 7
In Zimmerman v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., Judge Gilliam denied dismissal of Heuchan’s claims but granted it for Giordano’s sunscreen-label claims.
Toni Heuchan’s claims continue after dismissal was denied; Marie Giordano’s Teint-based claims were dismissed without leave to amend. The order also affected L’Oreal USA, Inc., which obtained dismissal of Giordano’s claims but not Heuchan’s.
What happened
Zimmerman v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. is a proposed class action alleging that L’Oréal misleadingly advertised the sunscreen protection of certain cosmetic foundations. The plaintiffs said labels suggesting 24-hour wear could make consumers believe the products provided 24 hours of sunscreen protection, even though the products required reapplication every two hours.
L’Oréal asked the court to dismiss Toni Heuchan’s claims about Pro Glow foundation and Marie Giordano’s claims about Teint foundation. The court found that Heuchan plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer could be misled because the reapplication instruction was hidden under a peel-back label. For Giordano, however, the court found that the visible back label clarified the sunscreen’s two-hour reapplication requirement.
In Zimmerman v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., Judge Gilliam granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. He denied dismissal of Heuchan’s claims and granted dismissal of Giordano’s claims, which were dismissed without leave to amend. The court also scheduled a case-management conference.
The detailed version
- Zimmerman v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. · No. 4:22-cv-07609
- Haywood Gilliam
- Dec. 8, 2023
Background
Lynn Zimmerman, Toni Heuchan, and Marie Giordano filed a proposed class action against L’Oreal USA, Inc. They alleged that L’Oréal misleadingly advertised the sunscreen benefits of several cosmetic foundations. Their claims included violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as unjust enrichment and common-law fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation.
The motion at issue concerned Heuchan’s claims about L’Oréal Infallible Pro-Glow Foundation and Giordano’s claims about Lancôme Teint Idole Ultra 24H Long Wear Matte Foundation. Heuchan alleged that Pro-Glow’s front label statements—“Up to 24H Foundation,” “OCTINOXATE Sunscreen,” and “Broad Spectrum SPF 15”—could lead a reasonable consumer to believe that sunscreen protection lasted 24 hours. The complaint also alleged that the instruction to reapply the product at least every two hours for sunscreen use appeared under a peel-back sticker.
Giordano alleged that Teint’s front label statements—including “Octinoxate Sunscreen,” “Broad Spectrum SPF 15,” and “Up To 24H Color Wear & Comfort”—could lead a reasonable consumer to believe that the sunscreen protection lasted 24 hours. Unlike the Pro-Glow allegations, Giordano’s allegations stated that Teint’s reapplication instruction appeared directly on the back of the product rather than under a peel-back sticker.
Legal standard
L’Oréal moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. The court applied the “reasonable consumer” test, asking whether a significant portion of reasonable consumers could probably be misled by the advertising. Because fraud was an essential part of some claims, the court also discussed Rule 9(b), which requires fraud to be pleaded with particularity.
The court considered whether information on a product’s back label could resolve an ambiguity on its front label. It relied on precedent stating that consumers may be expected to consider information available at the time of purchase when a front label is ambiguous, but it distinguished situations where an important disclaimer is obstructed or not immediately visible.
Court’s analysis
For Pro-Glow, the court found that the phrase “Up to 24H Foundation” was ambiguous: it could refer only to cosmetic benefits, or it could be understood to include sunscreen protection. The court held that it could not decide at the dismissal stage that a reasonable consumer would peel back the label in a store to read the two-hour sunscreen reapplication instruction. The court therefore concluded that Heuchan plausibly alleged that the Pro-Glow label could deceive a reasonable consumer and DENIED L’Oréal’s motion to dismiss Heuchan’s claims.
For Teint, the court likewise found that “Up to 24H Color Wear & Comfort” was ambiguous when read with the nearby sunscreen statements. But the court held that Teint’s back label resolved that ambiguity because it was directly visible and stated that octinoxate was used as sunscreen and that the product should be reapplied every two hours for sunscreen use. The court concluded that Giordano had not plausibly alleged that the Teint label would deceive a reasonable consumer. It GRANTED L’Oréal’s motion to dismiss Giordano’s claims and dismissed those claims without leave to amend because the court found that amendment would be futile.
The court also GRANTED L’Oréal’s request for judicial notice of the product labels specifically referenced in the complaint. It DENIED L’Oréal’s request for judicial notice of three dictionaries’ definitions of “foundation” because the definitions were not relevant to the court’s decision.
Disposition
Judge Gilliam’s order GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART L’Oréal’s motion to dismiss. The motion is DENIED as to Heuchan’s claims and GRANTED as to Giordano’s claims. Giordano’s claims based on the Teint foundation products are DISMISSED without leave to amend. The court also set a case-management conference for January 9, 2024, and directed the parties to meet and confer and submit a joint case-management statement by January 2, 2024.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.