JASON ‘Natural’ False Ad Class Action Survives Motion for Dismissal

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 judge has allowed a JASON natural products labeling class action to continue, saying issues remain that ought to be decided by a jury.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen denied a motion for dismissal brought by defendants The Hain Celestial Group and JASON Natural Products Inc.

The two companies are seeking to evade claims that they falsely marketed JASON deodorant as “natural” when it actually contains non-natural ingredients.

Regarding the plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims, Judge Chen said it’s a close call to determine whether the “natural” labeling on JASON deodorant is or is not misleading. Previous court opinions on that issue reach varying conclusions, the judge noted.

At oral argument, attorneys for the defendants argued that a consumer would not be misled by the labeling at issue. Given the nature of the product and the way it’s presented, consumers would understand that the appearance of the term “natural” on the label for JASON deodorant wouldn’t necessarily mean the product contains no artificial ingredients whatsoever, the attorneys argued.

The judge concluded the issue isn’t suitable for dismissal. Ninth Circuit case law says the question of whether a business practice is deceptive is a question of fact, which is not a question that can be resolved on a motion to dismiss and is ultimately destined for resolution by a jury.

JASON also argued to have the action stayed while the U.S. Food and Drug Administration completes and issues guidance on the use of the term “natural” in food labeling. While the FDA’s review is specific to food products, the defendants argued the review would be applicable in this case because the personal care products at issue contain many of the same ingredients.

Judge Chen didn’t find that analogy adequate. He noted no evidence that the FDA was in the process of making a determination about “natural” labeling as applied to personal care products. Therefore he declined to stay the case, as doing so would have needlessly delayed resolution of the plaintiffs’ claims.

The judge rejected the argument that all claims against defendant Hain should be dismissed since Hain is only the parent company of JASON. The judge noted that plaintiffs asserted claims against Hain as much as against JASON, claims that adequately allege Hain had a role in the purported mislabeling.

The judge further rejected JASON’s arguments against claims for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment, as well as its challenge to the plaintiffs’ proposal of a nationwide Class.

This JASON class action lawsuit was filed in August 2017 by plaintiffs Makinde Pecanha and Shaun Ray Bell. The two plaintiffs take issue with labeling on JASON deodorant that bears phrases like “Naturally Fresh,” “Pure Natural Deodorant,” “Pure Natural Deodorant Stick” and “Natural Pioneer Since 1959.”

These phrases would give a reasonable consumer the impression that the product contains only natural ingredients, the plaintiffs claim. But they can’t be reconciled with the presence of allegedly synthetic ingredients in the product – ingredients like tocopherol acetate, glycerin, and ethylhexylglycerin, the plaintiffs allege.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Kenneth Kiyul Lee of Jenner & Block LLP.

The JASON Deodorant Mislabeling Class Action Lawsuit is Pecanha, et al. v. The Hain Celestial Group Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-04517, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.