ChapStick settlement will remove ‘100% natural’ from labels

ChapStick settlement overview: 

• Who: GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer have reached a settlement with ChapStick consumers.
• Why: The settlement ends claims that the companies falsely advertised ChapStick as being “100% natural.”
• Where: The ChapStick settlement was filed in a California federal court. 

GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer have reached a settlement with consumers to end claims that they falsely advertised certain ChapStick products as being “100% natural,” when they actually contained synthetic ingredients.

The class of consumers, led by plaintiff Lisa Moore, filed a motion on July 24 in a California federal court stating that a settlement had been reached with the companies. 

The class says that GlaxoSmithKline, which combined its consumer healthcare business with Pfizer’s in 2019, had agreed to stop labeling certain ChapSticks as “100% Natural” or “100% Naturally Sourced Ingredients” to end litigation.

The motion also calls for a $5,000 service award to Moore for her efforts in prosecuting the case, plus attorney fees and costs of more than $490,000. The settlement releases claims for injunctive relief, but preserves the right of the class members to pursue monetary claims.

Settlement comes after four years of litigation

The lawsuit was first filed in 2020. At the time, Moore alleged she and other consumers were misled by GlaxoSmithKline’s representations that their ChapStick products are “100% Natural.” 

She challenged several ChapStick products including ChapStick 100% Natural Lip Butter, ChapStick Total Hydration 100% Natural Lip Balm, and ChapStick Total Hydration Essential Oils Lip Balm, alleging they contain synthetic ingredients, including carmine, fragrance and tocopherols

Despite this, the products were reportedly advertised with misleadingly label statements such as “100% Natural,” “Natural,” “Naturally Sourced Ingredients,” and “100% Naturally Sourced Ingredients.”

Due to the value placed on natural ingredients, authorities such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have issued regulations to standardize “natural” advertisements.

The USDA has strict definitions of marketing terms such as “synthetic” while the FTC requires manufacturers to be able to substantiate their “natural” marketing if consumers can interpret these claims in certain ways.

What do you think of the settlement in this chapstick case? Let us know in the comments! 

Moore is represented by Ryan J. Clarkson, Bahar Sodaify and Alan Gudino of Clarkson Law Firm PC and Christopher D. Moon and Kevin O. Moon of Moon Law APC. 

The ChapStick class action lawsuit is Moore v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC et al., Case No. 4:20-cv09077, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Native deodorant class action alleges product falsely advertises 72-hour odor protection
• HiSmile advertises unrealistic results from teeth-whitening products, class action claims
• Beard Guyz class action alleges products falsely advertised as natural
• RiseWell children’s toothpaste contains PFAS, class action claims