St. Ives Apricot Scrub Class Action Lawsuit Tossed by Court

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A federal court tossed claims in the St. Ives Apricot Scrub class action lawsuit that alleged the product actually caused harm to consumers’ skin through over-abrasion.

Lead plaintiffs accused the soap maker, Unilever, of including walnut shells in St. Ives Apricot Scrub – a material that causes “microtears,” or fissure tears, in facial skin. The plaintiffs said the scrub was marketed for use on the face, but professionals roundly rebuked the use of such a harsh abrasive material for use on such thin skin.

According to the class action lawsuit, using St. Ives Apricot Scrub was the equivalent of “using sandpaper on your face,” potentially leading to irritation, swelling, and even premature aging. The plaintiffs sought certification of five Classes of consumers.

Unilever shot back with a motion to dismiss the St. Ives Apricot Scrub class action lawsuit, however. The company accused the plaintiffs of raising “made up” allegations and argued that they had not established any evidence that the microtears could cause any damage.

U.S. District Court Judge Andrew J. Guilford agreed and dismissed the class action lawsuit claims.

“First,” noted the judge in the order dismissing the class action, “plaintiffs haven’t shown that the alleged microtears themselves are a safety hazard.”

“So the real injuries asserted appear to be the alleged effects of microtears — the ‘acne, infection and wrinkles’ and ‘inflammation and irritation,’” continued the order.

The judge pointed to the dearth of evidence that backed up the St. Ives Apricot Scrub class action lawsuit allegations. Unilever had pointed out in its motion to dismiss that the plaintiffs relied on a small study establishing the danger of large and rough pieces of walnut shell to peoples’ delicate facial skin.

The judge’s order noted that the two-week study included only 14 participants and appeared to have been driven by the class action lawsuit itself.

The judge said that there was no evidence that “St. Ives, and not other products or lifestyle or sun damage or any other factor, produced acne, wrinkles, inflammation, or loss of moisture.”

Further, noted the judge’s order, neither of the plaintiffs alleged that they had experienced harm from using St. Ives Apricot Scrub on their faces.

“In short, plaintiffs haven’t provided sufficient evidence of a safety hazard or product defect that defendant was required to disclose,” concluded the order dismissing the class action allegations.

The St. Ives Apricot Scrub class action lawsuit sought to represent consumers who had purchased the product between 2012 and 2013. The plaintiffs wanted a full refund for themselves and each member of the Class.

Since the judge dismissed the class action lawsuit, he declared the plaintiffs’ motion to certify their proposed class moot.

The plaintiffs and proposed Class are represented by Scott A. Bursor, Joshua D. Arisohn and Yitzchak Kopel of Bursor & Fisher PA.

The St. Ives Apricot Scrub Class Action Lawsuit is Browning, et al. v. Unilever United States Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-­02210, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.