Slaten v. Christian Dior Perfumes, LLC.

Background

Alexis Slaten brought a putative class action against Christian Dior Perfumes, LLC, alleging that Dior deceptively labeled and advertised the sun-protection benefits of Dior Forever Foundation and Dior Forever Skin Glow Foundation. Slaten alleged that the products’ front labels included a “24H foundation” representation that reasonable consumers could understand as promising sunscreen protection lasting more than two hours. The products’ back labels instructed users to reapply the sunscreen at least every two hours.

Slaten alleged that she bought Dior Forever Foundation from a Macy’s store in Daly City, California, based on the product’s labeling. She claimed that, had she known the product would not provide 24-hour sun protection, she would not have bought it or would have paid less. She also alleged that the labels for Forever Skin Glow were substantially and stylistically similar to those for Forever Foundation.

Procedural History

The court had previously dismissed the original complaint with leave to amend. It later dismissed the First Amended Complaint with leave to amend after considering the Ninth Circuit’s decision in McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co. Slaten then filed the Second Amended Complaint. Dior moved to dismiss that complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Legal Standard

Under Rule 12(b)(6), dismissal is proper when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a claim that is plausible on its face. For false-labeling claims under California consumer-protection laws, the plaintiff must adequately 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.

The court applied Ninth Circuit precedent holding that, when a front label is ambiguous, a court may consider other information available to consumers, including the product’s back label. A front label must be unambiguously deceptive before a defendant can be prevented from relying on the rest of the label to clarify it.

Court’s Analysis

The front label was ambiguous

The court adhered to its earlier conclusion that the “24H” statement was ambiguous. A consumer could understand it to mean that both the foundation and its sun-protection benefits lasted 24 hours, but could also understand it to mean that only the cosmetic foundation benefits lasted 24 hours.

Slaten alleged that 69 percent of Survey 1 participants, who saw only the front label, expected the sunscreen benefits to last more than two hours. The court held that this result did not establish that the front label was unambiguously deceptive. Because 31 percent of participants gave the opposite answer, the survey showed that consumers were divided about the label’s meaning. The court treated that division as evidence of ambiguity, not clear deception.

The back label resolved the ambiguity

The back label was titled “Drug Facts,” identified the product’s purpose as sunscreen, stated that it helped prevent sunburn, and instructed consumers to “[r]eapply at least every 2 hours.” The court held that, after reading the back label, a reasonable consumer could not interpret the front label’s “24H foundation” representation as applying to the product’s sun protection.

The court rejected Slaten’s reliance on Survey 2, which allegedly showed that many participants did not click a link to view the back label. The complaint did not explain exactly what the survey participants were asked, and the court held that it was required to consider the back label because the front label was ambiguous, regardless of whether survey participants chose to view it.

The court also rejected Survey 3. Although that survey required participants to view both labels and found that half expected the sunscreen benefits to last more than two hours, it did not ask how participants understood the specific “24H” representation or how that representation related to the back label’s reapplication instruction. The court said the survey therefore left open the possibility that any confusion came from other packaging details, including the SPF 15 statement, rather than from the “24H foundation” representation. The court also noted that federal regulations required Dior to include SPF information on the front label.

The consumer reviews did not support the claims

The court found that three online reviews represented too small a portion of the targeted consumers to show that a significant portion of reasonable consumers were misled. The court also found that the reviews did not clearly concern the duration of sunscreen protection. References to the foundation lasting “all day” or providing “all day wear” could refer to the foundation rather than its sun protection. The review expressing confusion about applying the product every two hours did not mention sunscreen protection and could instead have concerned the foundation itself.

Standing for the second product

Dior challenged Slaten’s standing to pursue claims involving Forever Skin Glow because she did not allege that she bought that product. The court rejected that challenge, relying on its earlier finding that the two products were substantially similar and had no material distinction in their labeling. The court held that Slaten had standing to pursue claims involving both products.

Disposition

The court granted Dior’s motion to dismiss. It held that Slaten failed to plausibly plead that Dior’s product labels were false or misleading to reasonable consumers because the back labels resolved any ambiguity in the front labels’ “24H” representation. The court stated that the additional surveys and consumer reviews did not change that conclusion. Because no further amendment could save the claims, the court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend.