Nguyen v. Algenist LLC
- Katherine Failla
- 1:22-cv-00013
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 27
In Nguyen v. Algenist LLC, Judge Failla granted Algenist’s motion to dismiss Catherine Nguyen’s false-advertising, deceptive-practices, and warranty claims.
Catherine Nguyen’s individual claims and proposed nationwide class action against Algenist LLC were dismissed; the court also denied Nguyen’s request to amend and treated Algenist’s motion to strike the class allegations as moot.
What happened
In Nguyen v. Algenist LLC, Catherine Nguyen sued Algenist LLC, claiming its skincare products falsely suggested that vegan collagen would provide advanced anti-aging benefits. She brought the case for herself and a proposed nationwide class of purchasers.
The court held that Nguyen could seek money damages because she alleged paying a premium for the product, but she could not seek an order changing Algenist’s advertising because she could not show likely future harm. The court then found that her allegations did not plausibly show that the products’ collagen could not provide anti-aging benefits, so her false-advertising, deceptive-business-practice, and express-warranty claims were not adequately pleaded.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla granted Algenist’s motion to dismiss, denied Nguyen’s request to amend, and denied Algenist’s request to strike the class allegations as moot. The court directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- Nguyen v. Algenist LLC · No. 1:22-cv-00013
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 28, 2022
Background
Catherine Nguyen bought Algenist Genius Collagen Calming Relief in New York City. She alleged that Algenist’s labels and packaging represented that the products’ vegan collagen would provide “advanced anti-aging” benefits. After using the product, Nguyen alleged that she received no anti-aging or skin-firming benefits and paid a substantial price premium because of the representations. She sued under New York’s deceptive-business-practice and false-advertising statutes and for breach of express warranty, seeking to represent a proposed nationwide class of purchasers.
Nguyen’s theory was that topical collagen molecules are too large to penetrate the skin and therefore cannot provide anti-aging benefits. The three products specifically identified in the complaint were Calming Relief, Algenist Genius Liquid Collagen, and Algenist Genius Sleeping Collagen.
Standing
The court held that Nguyen lacked standing to seek injunctive relief, meaning a court order requiring Algenist to change its advertising. Although she said she would buy Calming Relief again if it were truthfully labeled, the court concluded that she could not plausibly be deceived by the same representations in the future after learning about the alleged problem.
The court held that Nguyen did have standing to seek damages. Her allegation that she paid a substantial price premium because of Algenist’s representations was sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage, even though she did not identify the exact amount of the premium. The court also held that she could assert claims concerning the three identified products because she alleged that they were substantially similar and used the same alleged misrepresentation. The court could not assess unnamed products mentioned generally in the complaint.
Claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350
New York General Business Law § 349 addresses deceptive business practices, while § 350 addresses false advertising. The court concluded that Nguyen plausibly alleged consumer-oriented conduct and likely had adequately alleged injury, but she failed to plausibly allege materially misleading conduct.
The court found that the product packaging could reasonably be read either as suggesting that collagen itself provided the advertised anti-aging benefits or as suggesting that the products’ ingredients worked together. Because both readings were reasonable, the court accepted Nguyen’s interpretation for purposes of the motion. The problem was that Nguyen did not adequately allege that the collagen could not provide any anti-aging benefits.
The complaint’s own cited article stated that topical collagen could moisturize skin and temporarily reduce the appearance of lines and wrinkles. The court treated hydration and reducing lines and wrinkles as anti-aging effects based on Nguyen’s allegations. The court therefore concluded that, based on her own source, the collagen could perform at least some of the advertised functions. Nguyen also did not allege that the products’ complete formulas, including their other ingredients, could not provide the advertised benefits. The court dismissed the statutory claims for failure to state a claim.
Express-warranty claim
The court dismissed Nguyen’s express-warranty claim for the same basic reason. Even assuming that the packaging created a warranty and that Nguyen relied on it, she had not plausibly alleged that the products failed to deliver the promised anti-aging benefits. Without an adequately alleged breach, the warranty claim could not proceed.
Leave to amend and class allegations
Nguyen requested leave to amend, but she had previously declined an opportunity to amend after receiving a pre-motion letter describing Algenist’s proposed arguments. She also did not explain how she could plead viable deceptive-practice, false-advertising, or warranty claims. The court therefore denied her request for leave to amend.
Because the court dismissed the claims, it denied as moot Algenist’s motion to strike the nationwide class allegations. The conclusion states that Algenist’s motion to dismiss was granted, all pending motions were terminated, remaining dates were adjourned, and the case was closed.
Read the full 27-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.