Judge Tosses Alba Botanica False Ad Class Action Lawsuit

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 false advertising class action lawsuit filed against Hain Celestial Group Inc. over its Alba Botanica skin product line has been dismissed by a California federal judge who said that the plaintiffs’ definition of “natural” was not clearly defined.

Plaintiffs Alessandra Balser and Ruth Kresha filed the Hain Celestial class action lawsuit in August 2013, alleging that the use of the words “natural” and “100 percent vegetarian” on the labels of over 30 of Alba Botanica skin care and cosmetics products was misleading since the products contain artificial ingredients.

On Dec. 18, U.S. District Judge Manuel L. Real tossed the proposed class action lawsuit without leave to amend.

“Plaintiffs have not alleged what they believed the representation ‘natural’ to have meant, nor have they sufficiently pled how they relied and were harmed by that representation,” Real wrote. “Plaintiffs contend that ‘natural’ and ‘100 percent vegetarian’ are misrepresentations of Defendant’s products.”

Judge Real explained that such allegations need to be judged based on whether or not “a reasonable consumer would be likely to be deceived.”

“First, it is undisputed that ‘natural’ is a vague and ambiguous term,” the judge wrote. “Plaintiffs aver that ‘natural’ means: ‘existing in or produced by nature; not artificial.'”

Real took issue with this definition, saying that it “is implausible as applied to the products at issue: shampoos and lotions do not exist in nature, there are no shampoo trees, cosmetics are manufactured.”

Therefore, he concludes, he doesn’t see how the plaintiffs or any other reasonable customer could be deceived.

Judge Real also rejected Balser and Kresha’s definition of “100 percent vegetarian,” which they take to mean only products that are purely from vegetable matter. Real argued that “the more common understanding if without animal products, which is how Defendants use the term and the Defendants’ labels further clarify the meaning of the phrase.”

The judge explained that Hain Celestial defines what it means by “natural” and “100 percent vegetarian” on its website when it states that “this means we don’t use parabens, sulfates, or phthalates,” as well as other ingredients that it refrains from using in its products.

In addition, “the labels on the cosmetics include an explanation explaining what natural ingredients are added, what ingredients are excluded and a complete list of all ingredients,” Judge Real said.

Real concluded that “dismissal with prejudice is appropriate when further amendment would be futile.”

Hain is facing other class action lawsuits over its line of Avalon Organic products and Jason brand cosmetics.

The plaintiffs are represented by Mark Peter Kindall, Jeffrey S. Nobel, Nicole Veno and Robert Izard of Izard Nobel LLP and Elizabeth Lin of The Lin Law Firm APLC.

The Hain Celestial Alba Botanica Class Action Lawsuit is Balser, et al. v. The Hain Celestial Group Inc., Case No. 2:13-cv-05604, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.