de Lacour v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.

Background

Anne de Lacour, Andrea Wright, and Loree Moran sued Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Tom’s of Maine Inc. They alleged that the defendants’ use of “natural” on toothpaste and deodorant labels was false or misleading because the products contained synthetic or highly chemically processed ingredients. They sought damages under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law; Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act; New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350; and theories of breach of express warranty.

The court had previously certified three state classes covering qualifying purchasers in California, Florida, and New York. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment, moved to exclude four of the plaintiffs’ experts, and moved to decertify the classes.

Summary Judgment

The court applied the reasonable-consumer standard. Under that standard, the plaintiffs had to present evidence that a significant portion of reasonable consumers could likely be misled by the “natural” label. More specifically, they had to offer evidence supporting their theory that a reasonable consumer would understand “natural” to mean that the products contained no synthetic or highly chemically processed ingredients.

The court granted Tom’s motion for summary judgment. It held that the plaintiffs had not produced sufficient evidence to create a triable factual issue about deception. The court found that the survey evidence, governmental guidance, the named plaintiffs’ testimony, Tom’s internal documents, and employee testimony did not establish the claimed reasonable-consumer understanding.

The court separately granted the defendants’ motion to exclude the opinions of Brian Sowers. Sowers’s survey conclusions relied on a question that defined “natural” and “artificial” only in relation to each other, without providing adequate definitions. The court found both terms ambiguous and concluded that the survey responses could not support a meaningful conclusion about consumers’ understanding of “natural.” The court therefore ruled that Sowers’s report and testimony about the report were inadmissible.

The court also found that the other evidence did not fill this gap. It explained that there was no governmental guidance defining “natural” for personal-care products, and that food-related governmental materials reflected inconsistent or incomplete definitions. The named plaintiffs’ own definitions showed their personal views but did not demonstrate what a reasonable consumer would understand. The defendants’ internal documents and employee statements likewise did not establish the understanding of a reasonable consumer.

Based on the lack of evidence of deception, the court held that Tom’s was entitled to summary judgment on the California statutory claims, Florida statutory claims, New York statutory claims, and express-warranty claims.

Class Decertification

The court granted the defendants’ motion to decertify the California, Florida, and New York classes. It explained that discovery had shown no support for the plaintiffs’ allegation about what reasonable consumers understood “natural” to mean. Because there was no generalized proof of deception, common factual questions did not predominate over individual questions as required for the classes. The court therefore decertified the classes.

Disposition

Tom’s motion for summary judgment was GRANTED. The defendants’ motion to exclude Sowers’s opinions was GRANTED. The defendants’ motion to decertify the classes was GRANTED. The remaining motions were DENIED as moot. The Clerk was directed to close the listed motions.