Eshelby v. LOreal USA, Inc.

Background

Veronica Eshelby brought a proposed class action against L’Oréal USA, Inc. She alleged that L’Oréal’s product labels violated the consumer-protection laws of 44 states, including California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. She also alleged breach of an express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment, and requested injunctive relief. She later withdrew her claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Eshelby alleged that she bought four L’Oréal products in 2021 and repeatedly repurchased them. The products prominently displayed “Paris” and included some French-language text, while fine print on the back or side stated that they were made in the United States or Canada. Eshelby alleged that she believed the products were made in France and would not have bought them at their prices had she known otherwise. She also alleged that other consumers were misled and paid a premium because they believed the products were made in France.

L’Oréal moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally plausible claim. L’Oréal also raised arguments under Rule 9(b), which imposes heightened pleading requirements for fraud-based allegations.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that Eshelby had not plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer would be misled about the products’ manufacturing location. For products displaying “Paris” without French-language text, the court held that merely referring to Paris was insufficient to mislead a reasonable consumer. The court also emphasized that “Paris” appeared as part of the stylized brand name “L’Oréal Paris,” and that L’Oréal could use its brand name to identify its products.

The court distinguished a company’s association with Paris from a representation that a particular product was manufactured in France. It found that the product labels did not make an actual representation about the manufacturing country and that each product included a correct disclosure of its manufacturing location. The court rejected Eshelby’s argument that consumers should not have to look beyond the front label because the front label was not sufficiently misleading to make the disclosures irrelevant.

The court also rejected Eshelby’s reliance on two French cosmetic products as examples of industry practice. It found that she had not alleged that those products were comparable to the haircare and makeup products she purchased in terms of retailers, price, or target audience. The court further concluded that the English-language product names and descriptions on Eshelby’s products, along with the French translations, did not plausibly support an inference that the products were made in France. The mere presence of foreign-language text was not enough.

The court declined to consider Eshelby’s consumer survey because she had not relied on it in the complaint or attached its results to the complaint. The court also found that amending the complaint to add the survey would be futile because the survey showed respondents only the front of the product, omitted the manufacturing-location disclosure, and omitted responses from people who did not know where the product was made.

Rulings

The court dismissed Eshelby’s California-law claims and her claims for breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The court explained that the unjust-enrichment claim also could not proceed if it duplicated the other claims.

The court separately dismissed the claims brought on behalf of the proposed class. It found that the products varied substantially in their language, packaging, branding, product type, and claims, and therefore Eshelby’s claims did not present a sufficiently similar basis for claims involving products she had not purchased. The court also stated that because Eshelby had not stated a claim concerning the products she bought, she could not maintain claims for the proposed class.

The court dismissed Eshelby’s request for injunctive relief because she had not shown a sufficient likelihood of future injury. Her alleged intent to buy a product if L’Oréal changed or remarketed it did not establish a real or immediate threat of future injury.

The court dismissed Eshelby’s withdrawn Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims without prejudice. It granted L’Oréal’s motion to dismiss, denied Eshelby’s request for leave to amend, denied L’Oréal’s request for oral argument, directed the clerk to terminate the motion, and closed the case. The court did not reach L’Oréal’s Rule 9(b) arguments because its Rule 12(b)(6) analysis was sufficient.