Young v. L'oreal USA, Inc.

Background

Renee Young and Roxane Tierney filed a putative class action against L’Oréal, Inc. The amended complaint concerned four viscous cosmetic products: Visible Lift Serum, Age Perfect Eye Cream, SuperStay Foundation, and RevitaLift Moisturizer. The plaintiffs alleged that the products’ pump dispensers left a significant amount of product in the containers and that L’Oréal failed to disclose this limitation on the packaging.

The plaintiffs alleged claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and unjust enrichment; and a claim for declaratory relief. They alleged that they would not have bought the products had they known they could not access all of the product through the pumps. They also relied on consumer complaints, a survey, and testing that allegedly showed that between 19% and 56% of the product remained undistributed, depending on the product.

L’Oréal moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that federal law preempted the claims and, alternatively, that the amended complaint did not state a plausible claim. L’Oréal also relied on the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act as an alternative preemption ground. The recommendation noted that a nearly identical earlier round of litigation involving L’Oréal had been dismissed, and that the Second Circuit had affirmed dismissal based on preemption under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Federal preemption

Federal preemption means that federal law prevents state law from imposing certain requirements. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires cosmetic labels to state the product’s net quantity and expressly bars states from imposing cosmetic-labeling requirements that differ from or add to federal requirements. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act likewise requires the net quantity of contents to be stated accurately and preempts state requirements that demand different information.

The plaintiffs acknowledged that the federal laws applied to the products and that L’Oréal complied with them. They argued, however, that California law required L’Oréal to disclose how much product could be dispensed through the pumps. The recommendation rejected that argument. Following the Second Circuit’s decision in the earlier related proceeding, it concluded that the requested disclosure would add to the federal labeling requirements and that the plaintiffs’ claims were therefore preempted by the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

The recommendation separately concluded that the claims were preempted by the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act. It rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the court should consider only the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and held that the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act supplied an independent basis for preemption.

Failure to state a plausible claim

The recommendation also considered L’Oréal’s alternative argument that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim. Under the reasonable-consumer standard, the plaintiffs had to allege facts showing that a significant portion of ordinary consumers could be misled.

The recommendation concluded that the survey did not establish relevant expectations because it described a “liquid cosmetic” in a closed pump container, while the products at issue were creams, moisturizers, foundation, and serum. The testing showed only that some product remained in the containers; it did not make deception plausible because consumers generally understand that pump dispensers may not release every bit of a viscous product. The consumer complaints and allegations about L’Oréal’s customer-service practices likewise showed dissatisfaction with the pumps but did not plausibly show deception or an intent to deceive.

The recommendation further concluded that the warranty claims were insufficiently pleaded because the plaintiffs did not allege that the cosmetics were unsafe, failed to work for their ordinary purposes, violated a promise on the label, or contained considerable defects. It concluded that the unjust-enrichment claim also failed because the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged a cognizable injury. Finally, because the plaintiffs said they would not purchase the products again, the recommendation concluded that they lacked standing to seek injunctive or declaratory relief.

Disposition

Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker recommended that L’Oréal’s motion to dismiss be granted in its entirety and that the claims be dismissed with prejudice. The report and recommendation was addressed to United States District Judge Gregory H. Woods and notified the parties that they could file objections. The opinion text does not state that Judge Woods adopted the recommendation.