Sunology Class Action Lawsuit Says Sunscreen Isn’t ‘Natural’

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 proposed class action lawsuit has been filed in New York federal court against McNabb LLC over allegations that the company deceives consumers with “natural” claims on its Sunology sunscreen labels while the product actually contains synthetic ingredients.

Plaintiff Vivian Douek says that she was duped into paying a premium price for McNabb’s Sunology Natural Sun Protection products based on the company’s “natural” claim and its labeling indicating “active ingredients derived from nature.” Douek alleges that the products contain synthetic ingredients such as dimethicone and zinc oxide.

Douek doesn’t discount the fact that these ingredients are listed on the label, but says that a “reasonable consumer is not expected or required to scour the ingredients list on the back of the Products to confirm or debunk” the “natural” claims on the product’s front label.

“Discovering that the ingredients are not natural and are actually synthetic requires a scientific investigation and knowledge of chemistry beyond that of the average consumer,” Douek asserts in her claim. “That is why, even though [the synthetic chemicals] are identified on the back of the products’ packaging in the ingredients listed, the reasonable consumer would not understand — nor is she expected to understand — that these ingredients are synthetic.”

The class action lawsuit claims in particular are centered around the Sunology Natural Sunscreen SPF 50 for Body, Sunology Natural Sunscreen SPF 50 for Face and Sunology SPF 50 for Kids products, with Douek saying that had she “known the truth – that the representations she relied upon in making her purchases were false, misleading and deceptive – she would not have purchased the Products at a premium price.”

The plaintiff has brought forth several counts against the Sunology manufacturer including violations of consumer protection laws, breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, negligence and violation of the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Doeuk seeks to represent a nationwide Class as well as a New York subclass of consumers who were misled by the “natural” claims on the Sunology sunscreen label. On behalf of herself and the proposed Class, she is seeking a label change to accurately reflect the product and compensation to consumers who suffered economic losses by paying more for a product that was allegedly falsely advertised.

“Since defendant’s conduct has been uniformly directed at all consumers in the United States, and the conduct continues presently, injunctive relief on a class-wide basis is a viable and suitable solution to remedy defendant’s continuing misconduct,” Douek states. The plaintiff also indicates that she would purchase Sunology products again in the future if the ingredients included in the product were indeed “natural.”

Coincidentally, this week the Federal Trade Commission announced that four companies who manufacture health and beauty products had reached settlements with the agency. The FTC accused the  companies’ of falsely labeling products, including sunscreen products, as “all natural” or “100 percent natural” despite the products containing synthetic ingredients such as dimethicone, a synthetic skin protectant.

Douek is represented by Jason P. Sultzer of the Sultzer Law Group.

The Sunology Natural Sunscreen Class Action Lawsuit is Douek, et al. v. McNabb LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-01763 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.