McAuley v. The Honey Pot Company, LLC

Background

Nicole McAuley and Jessica Wright filed a proposed class action against The Honey Pot Company, LLC, concerning four feminine-care foaming washes: normal, sensitive, cucumber aloe, and bergamot rose. The product labels described them as feminine-care products used to wash intimate parts. Honey Pot’s website stated that it was “gynecologist-approved,” that a person’s vulva-hygiene routine should include a cleanser, and that the products contained safe, high-quality formulas.

The plaintiffs alleged that these statements represented that women should use the products on the vulva. They claimed the statements were false or misleading because the products were unnecessary, the vulva and vagina are self-cleaning, and ingredients in feminine-hygiene products can cause irritation, infections, or other health problems. They cited medical sources, a report, and a newspaper article in support of those allegations.

Each plaintiff bought the sensitive foaming wash from Target after allegedly relying on Honey Pot’s statements. They claimed they paid a substantial price premium and did not receive the benefit of the bargain.

Honey Pot moved to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 9(b). Rule 12(b)(1) addresses whether the court has jurisdiction, including whether a plaintiff has standing. Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether the complaint adequately states a legally valid claim. Rule 9(b) imposes heightened pleading requirements for fraud allegations.

Standing

The court denied Honey Pot’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing. At the pleading stage, the plaintiffs adequately alleged a financial injury by claiming that they bought products with allegedly misleading labels and paid a premium because of those representations. The court held that the plaintiffs did not need to identify competing-product prices at this stage to establish the alleged premium.

New York Consumer-Protection Claims

The plaintiffs brought claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. Those provisions require allegations that the defendant engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that was materially misleading and that the plaintiff was injured as a result.

The court considered both the product-label statements and the website statements because the plaintiffs alleged that they saw the representations before or when they bought the products. But the court held that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged that the statements were likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.

The medical articles stating that warm water is sufficient to clean the vulva did not specifically discuss Honey Pot’s products. The plaintiffs also did not provide enough factual information about the products’ ingredients or practical effects to show that they were equivalent to the soaps discussed in those articles. Sources discussing harmful products used inside the vagina did not support claims about products advertised for use on the vulva. The plaintiffs did not allege that Honey Pot’s products contained the harmful ingredients identified in one report. Finally, the quoted statement about possible health issues from prolonged use of fragrance was insufficient, particularly because only the bergamot rose product was alleged to contain fragrance.

The court therefore dismissed the claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350.

Other Claims

The court also dismissed the claims for breach of express warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment. It reasoned that each of those claims depended on adequately alleging that the product labeling, considered as a whole, was deceptive. Because the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged deceptive conduct, those claims also failed.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The plaintiffs asked for permission to amend their complaint. Although they had already amended once, the court noted that they had not previously received a court ruling identifying the pleading deficiencies. In the interests of justice, the court granted them leave to file a motion to amend by April 15, 2024.

The court granted Honey Pot’s motion to dismiss. It vacated the deadlines in the amended case-management plan and directed the clerk to terminate the motion. Judge Analisa Torres did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.