L’Oreal USA, Inc., makers of Matrix Biolage Keratindose Pro-Keratin + Silk Shampoo named in class action for false advertising


This is a nationwide class action brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of consumers who purchased Matrix Biolage Keratindose Pro-Keratin + Silk Shampoo, Pro-Keratin + Silk Conditioner, and/or Pro-Keratin Renewal Spray.

As alleged, keratin is a protein naturally present in human hair, skin and nails. It is made by cells called keratinocytes and consists of amino acids. Its primary function is to protect the cells in hair, skin and nails from damage or stress. Through its uniform, nationwide advertising campaign, including the name of the Keratindose Product line and the names of each Product, Defendants have led consumers to believe that their Keratindose Products actually contain keratin and will confer the claimed benefits of keratin to the consumer.

According to the complaint, the Keratindose Products do not contain any keratin at all and are incapable of providing the claimed benefits of keratin to the consumer.


Naming the Products “Keratindose” when they contain no keratin, and echoing that representation with additional statements on the Product labels and in a uniform advertising campaign, is unlawful. The Keratindose Products’ labels are false, deceptive and misleading, in violation of the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetics Act and its parallel state statutes, and almost every state warranty, consumer protection, and product labeling law throughout the United States.

  1. Defendants’ misbranding is intentional, and renders the Products worthless or less valuable. If Defendants had disclosed to Plaintiffs and putative Class Members that their Keratindose Products do not contain any keratin at all, and that the Products do not provide the claimed benefits of keratin, Plaintiffs and putative Class Members would not have purchased the Products or they would have paid less for the Products.

As a result of Defendants’ misconduct and misrepresentations, Plaintiffs and putative Class Members have suffered injury in fact, including economic damages.


White Wave, makers of Silk Almond Beverages, named in class action lawsuit over mislabeling of the beverage

Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all persons in the United States who, at any time since four years prior to the filing of this complaint, purchased any Silk Almond milk beverage (“Silk Almond Beverages”) manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold by WWF Operating Company, dba White Wave Services, Inc. (“WhiteWave” or “Defendant”).

This case arises out of the false, misleading, and deceptive marketing practices of Defendant’s Silk Almond milk products. Defendant has deceptively informed and led its customers to believe that they were purchasing, for a premium price, a dairy milk alternative that is nutritionally equivalent, and even superior, to dairy milk, as defined by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (the “FDA”).

As alleged, Silk Almond Beverages significantly lack many of the essential nutrients and vitamins provided in dairy milk, which Defendant fails to disclose to and actively conceals from consumers.

By calling its Silk Almond Beverages “milk”, a term historically used to define cow’s milk, Defendant has capitalized on reasonable consumers’ understanding of the well-known health benefits and essential nutrients that dairy milk provides without actually providing those health benefits and essential nutrients. Moreover, Defendant’s entire marketing strategy portrays its Silk Almond Beverages as nutritionally superior to dairy milk.

Defendant fails to label its Silk Almond Beverages as “imitation milk”, as required by the FDA, which requires products to be labeled “imitation” if there is any reduction in the content of essential nutrients present in a measurable amount in the standardized food for which the product is substituting. Thus, Silk Almond Beverages must be labeled “imitation milk” because they are, in fact, nutritionally inferior to dairy milk due to their reduction in the content of essential nutrients present in a measurable amount in dairy milk, as identified above and throughout this complaint.

Moreover, because Defendant utilizes the common or usual name of a food (i.e. “milk”) but fails to reveal the basic nature and characterizing ingredients of the Silk Almond Beverages, in accordance with 21 C.F.R. § 102.5(b), Defendant must label its Almond Beverages as “imitation milk”, as required by 21 C.F.R. § 101.3(e).

The Complaint alleges that the amount of essential vitamins and nutrients provided by dairy milk has a material bearing on price and consumer acceptance of products attempting to substitute dairy milk. WhiteWave has labeled its products to highlight its low calorie and fat content as compared to fat-free dairy milk and has been successful in capturing the market share previously attributed to dairy milk due to its omissions regarding the actual nutritional comparison of essential nutrients. By deceiving consumers about the nature, quality, and/or ingredients of its products, WhiteWave is able to command a premium price, increasing consumers’ willingness to pay and reduce the market share of competing products, thereby increasing its own sales and profits.

The complaint also alleges that Defendant’s deceptive labeling poses a serious health concern to consumers. In fact, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Report found that in cases where people do not consume dairy, the levels of calcium, magnesium, iron, vitamin A and riboflavin drop below the recommended intake, and intake levels of potassium, vitamin D and choline also drop substantially.


HP named in class action lawsuit for installing firmware that causes printers to fail when using non-HP brand ink cartridges


The complaint contends that HP intentionally installed firmware on certain wirelessly-enabled HP printers that caused the printers to fail when being used with non-HP brand ink cartridges.

The firmware operated to disable the printers if ink cartridges manufactured by an HP competitor were being used. In such cases, error messages appeared on the printer and/or the device sending the print job to the printer stating that the printer error was due to a damaged or failed ink cartridge. The error messages instructed the users to replace the non-HP ink cartridges with new cartridges. Only if the cartridges were replaced with ones manufactured by HP did the printers resume operation.

As alleged, HP intentionally installed this firmware in order to force consumers to purchase HP’s more expensive ink cartridges as opposed to the less expensive ink cartridges manufactured by its competitors. This scheme was intended to and did cause HP to profit in the form of ink cartridge sales and servicing charges.

HP misrepresented to Plaintiffs that the printers were compatible with non-HP ink cartridges. Plaintiffs were induced to purchase the printers and/or ink cartridges from Defendants based on these misrepresentations regarding the functionality and quality of the printers. Defendants also intentionally misrepresented that the printers failed because the ink cartridges being used were damaged or had failed.


Family Dollar named in class action lawsuit for falsely advertising Tropic Sun Aloe Vera Gel

This is a nationwide consumer class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of all individuals who purchased Defendants’ Tropic Sun Aloe Vera Gel.

Family Dollar Defendants advertise, market, sell, and distribute the Product. The Product’s label declares it to be “Made with 100% Pure Aloe.” According to the Product’s ingredient label, it contains “Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice.” In reality, according to independent laboratory tests, Defendants’ Product contain no actual Aloe Vera at all.

The complaint alleges that the product’s label is false, deceptive and misleading, in violation of the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetics Act and its parallel state statutes, and almost every state warranty, consumer protection, and product labeling law in the United States.

Nestle USA, manufacturer of Lean Cuisine products, named in class action for deceptively marketing its products as containing no preservatives


Plaintiff brings this class action against NESTLE USA, INC, for the deceptive practice of marketing its Lean Cuisine® frozen meals as having “No Preservatives” when many of them contain citric acid (2-hydroxypropane-1,2,3-tricarboxylic acid), a well-known preservative commonly used in commercial food and drink products.

Defendant sold Plaintiff and Class members, and continues to sell consumers, the following products containing citric acid with misleading “No Preservatives” language:

  1. Lean Cuisine® favorites Alfredo Pasta with Chicken & Broccoli
  2. Lean Cuisine® favorites Four Cheese Cannelloni
  3. Lean Cuisine® favorites Cheese Ravioli
  4. Lean Cuisine® favorites Chicken Enchilada Suiza
  5. Lean Cuisine® favorites Fettuccini Alfredo
  6. Lean Cuisine® favorites Classic Five Cheese Lasagna
  7. Lean Cuisine® favorites Asian-Style Pot Stickers
  8. Lean Cuisine® favorites Spaghetti with Meatballs
  9. Lean Cuisine® favorites Macaroni & Cheese
  10. Lean Cuisine® favorites Chicken Fettuccini
  11. Lean Cuisine® favorites Five Cheese Rigatoni
  12. Lean Cuisine® favorites Cheddar Potatoes with Broccoli
  13. Lean Cuisine® favorites Lasagna with Meat Sauce
  14. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Roasted Chicken & Garden Vegetables
  15. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Creamy Basil Chicken with Tortellini
  16. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Chicken with Almonds
  17. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Sesame Chicken
  18. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Chicken Pecan
  19. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Ginger Garlic Stir Fry with Chicken
  20. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Tortilla Crusted Fish
  21. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Orange Chicken
  22. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Apple Cranberry Chicken
  23. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Chile Lime Chicken
  24. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Mushroom Mezzaluna Ravioli
  25. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Ranchero Braised Beef
  26. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Cheese and Bean Enchilada Verde
  27. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Cheese Tortellini
  28. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Ricotta Cheese & Spinach Ravioli
  29. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Spicy Beef & Bean Enchilada
  30. Lean Cuisine® MARKETPLACE Spicy Mexican Black Beans & Rice
  31. Lean Cuisine® Comfort Chicken Parmesan
  32. Lean Cuisine® Comfort Herb Roasted Chicken
  33. Lean Cuisine® Comfort Meatloaf with Mashed Potatoes
  34. Lean Cuisine® Comfort Salisbury Steak with Macaroni & Cheese
  35. Lean Cuisine® Comfort Shrimp Alfredo
  36. Lean Cuisine® Comfort Grilled Chicken Caesar
  37. Lean Cuisine® Craveables Four Cheese Pizza


By deceptively marketing the Products as having “No Preservatives,” Defendant wrongfully capitalized on, and reaped enormous profits from, consumers’ strong preference for food products made free of preservatives.

Plaintiff brings this proposed consumer class action on behalf of herself and all other persons in New York, who, from the applicable limitations period up to and including the present purchased for consumption and not resale any of Defendant’s Products.


Unilever named in class action over falsely advertising Pure Leaf Iced Tea as all natural


The complaint alleges that Unilever deceptively informed and led its customers to believe that its Pure Leaf Iced Tea, sold in a variety of flavors, is “All Natural,” despite containing unnatural ingredients, which are synthetic, artificial, and/or genetically modified, including but not limited to Citric Acid and/or “Natural Flavor.”


Whirlpool named in class action over falsely advertising AquaLift® Self-Cleaning Technology



Whirlpool designs, manufactures, advertises, and sells a line of gas and electric stoves, ranges, and ovens featuring its proprietary “AquaLift® Self-Cleaning Technology” (“AquaLift”) a system that purportedly “self-cleans” the interior of a dirty oven in less than one hour using only water and low heat.

According to the complaint Whirlpool’s marketing and advertising for its ovens containing AquaLift is false, deceptive, and misleading to reasonable consumers because AquaLift – a key product feature – does not perform as advertised or in accordance with Whirlpool’s express and implied warranties

Contrary to Whirlpool’s marketing claims, AquaLift does not “selfclean” or otherwise perform as advertised to consumers. To be sure, the Internet is teeming with consumer complaints that target the extent of Whirlpool’s defective AquaLift technology.


The Procter & Gamble Company named in class action over deceptively advertising pampers as clear and natural


Procter & Gamble prominently labels, markets and advertises its Pampers baby wipes (“Pampers Wipes” or the “Product”) as “natural.” This claim is false, deceptive and likely to mislead a reasonable person because Pampers Wipes contains chemicals that are synthetic, not natural. These chemicals can also cause skin irritation and other problems. Parents seeking natural products for their babies are not receiving the product promised them, but instead are purchasing a mis-branded product containing synthetic chemicals. These chemicals include dimethicone, phenoxyethanol, and ethyhexyl glycerin.

Proctor & Ganmble 7-14-16

FDA warns Popsalot, LLC that its Moroccan Mystique gourmet flavored popcorn product was falsely advertised as gluten free


On June 21, 2016, the FDA sent Popsalot, LLC a warning letter stating that its “Moroccan Mystique” gourmet flavored popcorn product is misbranded and its labeling false or misleading because the product bears the claim “gluten-free” but fails to comply with the definition of “gluten-free” [21 CPR 101.91(a)]. The FDA analyzed the product and found greater than 20 ppm gluten. According to regulations, the unavoidable presence of gluten in the food that bears a gluten-free claim must be below 20 ppm gluten (i.e., below 20 mg gluten per kg of food). A food that bears the claim “gluten-free” in its labeling and fails to meet this requirement will be deemed misbranded.

Hostess named in class action over misrepresenting the maple content of its Donettes Maple Glazed Mini Donuts


In April 2016, Plaintiff purchased Hostess Donettes Maple Glazed Mini Donuts. Plaintiff viewed and relied upon the product name indicating that the donuts were “maple glazed” and a prominent image of maple syrup being poured directly onto the donuts on the product packaging.

Despite depicting maple, the product does not contain maple and therefore, as alleged, the product is mischaracterized under federal and state laws.

Because she was purchasing a product that was labeled as containing maple, Plaintiff reasonably believed that it, in fact, contained maple. Had Plaintiff known that the product did not contain maple as an ingredient, she would not have purchased it or she would not have paid as much for the product.