Williams-Sonoma Class Action Says Soaps, Lotions Aren’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.

In a class action lawsuit, consumers allege that Williams-Sonoma falsely advertises its Fleur de Sel line of soaps, lotions, and cleaners as “natural,” when in fact they contain synthetic and harmful ingredients.

Plaintiff Brian Kutza says he purchased several Fleur de Sel household and personal care products at a Williams-Sonoma store in Los Angeles County.

Allegedly, he bought the items specifically because they were advertised as natural.

Kutza claims that had he known that the products contained harmful and synthetic ingredients, he would not have purchased the products for as much as he paid for them.

The Williams-Sonoma class action lawsuit states that the plaintiff would consider purchasing the products again if Williams-Sonoma changed the products’ composition to be consistent with their advertising as “natural.”

Kutza seeks to represent a Class of similarly affected consumers, and seeks damages for himself and other consumers. He also wants Williams-Sonoma to stop allegedly fraudulently representing its products.

Kutza’s Williams-Sonoma Fleur de Sel products class action lawsuit states that the Fleur de Sel products are advertised on the products’ labeling, packaging, and website that they are “natural,” “plant-based,” and contain “Active Ingredients Derived from Natural Sources.” The plaintiff says these statements led him to believe that the entire ingredient list would be natural.

The Williams-Sonoma class action lawsuit states that though the active ingredients in the products are naturally derived, the items contain significant inactive ingredients that are synthetic and harmful to people, including phenoxyethanol, a chemical known to be lethal even in very small doses.

The Fleur de Sel synthetic ingredients class action lawsuit claims that reasonable consumers would assume that if a product has only natural active ingredients, that the inactive ingredients would also be natural.

Allegedly, consumers rely on a product’s advertising to make purchasing decisions, and purchase natural products because they are believed to be healthier and more environmentally friendly than synthetic products. Additionally, the Williams-Sonoma class action says consumers are willing to pay more for natural products because of the supposed health and environmental benefits.

Kutza says consumers believe they are purchasing an item that is healthier than a synthetic product when they opt for a “natural” product, so Williams-Sonoma’s inclusion of synthetic ingredients, even though they are inactive, is deceptive, as the products are advertised as natural.

To support this argument, the Williams-Sonoma natural products class action lawsuit notes that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) specifically warns companies that the term “natural” can be deceptive, and provides guidelines for how companies can use it in ways that do not confuse or mislead consumers.

According to the FTC, “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.” Kutza claims that Williams-Sonoma’s use of the term “natural” goes against the FTC guidelines and misleads consumers.

Kutza is represented by James A. Morris and Shane E. Greenberg of Morris Law Firm, Daniel Orlowsky of Orlowsky Law LLC, and Adam Goffstein of Goffstein Law LLC.

The William Sonoma Fleur de Sel Natural Ingredients Class Action Lawsuit is Brian Kutza v. Williams-Sonoma Inc., Case No. 4:18-cv-3534, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: On Nov. 9, 2018, a Williams-Sonoma class action lawsuit involving claims of false advertising impacting more than 60 scented products made by the high end retailer, will move forward after a California federal judge denied a motion to dismiss the case.