Earthbath Class Action Alleges Pet Products Are ‘Greenwashed’

A California consumer is claiming the maker of Earthbath Natural Pet Care products is using deceptive”natural” labeling to cash in on a lucrative market.

San Francisco-based Earthwhile Endeavors manufactures dozens of alleged natural pet care items under the Earthbath brand, including shampoos, conditioners, wipes and more.

Plaintiff Lan Do claims those products are “greenwashed” to appear all natural when they are not.

The California resident says she bought several bottles of Earthbath Natural Pet Care Oatmeal & Aloe Shampoo in 2018 and 2019. Relying on the manufacturer’s marketing claims and product label, she paid about $20 for each 16-ounce bottle.

In her Earthbath Natural Pet Care class action lawsuit, she notes that consumers like herself are becoming increasingly concerned about the effects of synthetic ingredients in pet care products — and are willing to pay premium prices for those advertised as “natural.” In fact, the filing reports it is a multibillion-dollar market that’s expected to top $40 billion per year by 2025.

However, the plaintiff later learned that the shampoo she had purchased, as well as other Earthbath Natural Pet Care products, may contain some synthetic and/or artificial ingredients.

The lawsuit lists about a dozen non-natural elements allegedly contained (in varying combinations and amounts) within the company’s 32 natural pet care products: cetearyl alcohol, phytantriol, glycerin, sodium lauryl glucose carboxylate, lauryl glucoside, optical brighteners, boric acid, citric acid, polysorbate 20, caprlyl glycol, hydrolyzed silk protein, and synthetic cleansers and conditioners.

Many of these non-natural ingredients are reportedly cloaked in vague and/or natural-sounding terminology such as “renewable plant-derived and coconut-based cleansers,” “gentle conditioner & detangler,” “vegetable-derived conditioner & detangler” and “preservative,” according to the Earthbath Natural Pet Care class action lawsuit.

The plaintiff claims the products’ “renewable plant-derived and coconut-based cleansers” are actually synthetic cleaning agents, and notes that “hydrolyzed silk proteins” are in fact created through a chemical reaction called hydrolysis.

In addition, the term “preservative” allegedly refers to a toxic synthetic chemical called phenoxyethanol.

“The Federal Trade Commission charged several companies with falsely claiming their products were all-natural or 100% natural when, in fact, those products contained non-natural, synthetic ingredients, including phenoxyethanol,” the lawsuit reports. “These companies were barred from making similar representations in the future.”

In its Guides for the Use of Environmental Marketing Claims, the FTC states: “Marketers that are using terms such as natural must ensure that they can substantiate whatever claims they are conveying to reasonable consumers. If reasonable consumers could interpret a natural claim as representing that a product contains no artificial ingredients, then the marketer must be able to substantiate that fact.”

Such claims cannot be substantiated for Earthbath Natural Pet Care products, the plaintiff argues.

“No reasonable definition of ‘natural’ includes ingredients that, even if sourced from ‘nature,’ are subject to extensive, transformative chemical processing before their inclusion in a product,” the Earthbath Natural Pet Care class action lawsuit maintains. “Because the products contain these non-natural, synthetic, and/or artificial ingredients, they are mislabeled, misleading, and misbranded under both federal and state law.”

The plaintiff believes the company misled her and other consumers by hiding information about the non-natural ingredients contained within all of its “natural” pet care products.

She also claims its “misleading” labeling and advertising statements were deliberate, motivated by financial gain through increased sales.

By deceiving consumers seeking all natural pet care products, the company harmed both those consumers and its competitors.

“Defendant’s conduct in making the representations described herein constitutes a knowing failure to adopt policies in accordance with and/or adherence to applicable laws …  all of which are binding upon and burdensome to its competitors,” the Earthbath Natural Pet Care class action lawsuit argues. “This conduct engenders an unfair competitive advantage for Defendant.”

Do is seeking to create a nationwide Class of plaintiffs as well as a subclass of California plaintiffs.

For both putative Classes, the plaintiff is claiming breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment under federal law.

On behalf of the California subclass, she also is claiming deceptive advertising practices and unfair and unlawful business acts and practices, both under the state Business and Professions Code; and violations of the state’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

The plaintiff is demanding a jury trial in hope of winning injunctive relief to stop Earthwhile’s “malicious, fraudulent and wanton” conduct in marketing its Earthbath Natural Pet Care products; damages, restitution and other equitable relief; court costs; and “disgorgement of all benefits Defendant has enjoyed from its conduct.”

Do is represented by Christopher D. Moon and Kevin O. Moon of Moon Law APC.

The Earthbath Class Action Lawsuit is Lan Do v. Earthwhile Endeavors Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-03480, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

U by Kotex Tampons Class Action Settlement

How Much Do JUUL Pods Cost for School Kids?

Sex Trafficking Survivor Appointed to U.S. Advisory Council on Human Trafficking

Mercedes HVAC Class Action Settlement