Earthbath Class Action Says Pet Grooming Products Aren’t ‘All 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 class action lawsuit says Earthbath Inc. pet products aren’t “all natural” as advertised because they contain synthetic ingredients, and that their makers intentionally misrepresent the products.

Plaintiff Ricardo Jurado claims that he purchased Earthbath products from multiple online and retail stores, including Petco.

He says that he bought a number of products, including grooming wipes, from the company. Jurado claims that all of the products he purchased advertised that they were “totally natural” or “all natural.”

However, the Earthbath class action lawsuit argues that the products contain multiple synthetic ingredients, and therefore do not live up to their promise of being “all natural.”

The plaintiff says that he was financially injured by his purchase of the products because had he known they contained synthetic incidents, he would not have purchased the items.

The Earthbath pet grooming class action says that the products Jurado received were worth less than the products for which he paid.

Allegedly, consumers seek out products that are “all natural” and are willing to pay more for them than for products with synthetic ingredients, because they are seen as higher quality, better for health, and better for the environment.

The Earthbath mislabeling class action lawsuit says that Earthbath knew that consumers have a preference for natural products and intentionally capitalized on that preference in order to sell more products.

Allegedly, as the products were not really “all natural” the company unjustly enriched itself through the sale of these products.

Jurado seeks compensation for himself and on behalf of all similarly affected consumers, saying that many people were similarly injured by the company and its alleged misrepresentations of its products.

The Earthbath pet shampoo class action lawsuit also seeks an injunction to prevent the company from misrepresenting its products and misleading its consumers in the future.

According to Jurado, he would consider purchasing the product again if the company changed the ingredients in their products to remove synthetic ingredients and make the products adhere to their “totally natural” and “all natural” advertising.

The Earthbath pet products class action lawsuit says that the Earthbath products contain multiple synthetic ingredients including some that are harmful to human and animal health, as well as the health of the environment.

These products allegedly contain Polysorbate-20, an emulsifier, Tocopheryl Acetate, an ingredient in pesticides, Cetaryl Alcohol, a synthetic flavoring substance, Panethenal, Lauryl Glucoside, a surfactant, the preservative citric acid, and glycerin, a texturizer.

Jurado says that the products also contain toxic, synthetic ingredients including phenoxyethanol, a toxic system lethal in even small doses, and sodium chloride, a hazardous chemical.

To support his claim that these ingredients are synthetic and therefore not natural, Jurado cites information provided by the Agricultural Analytics Division for the USDA National Organics Program and its classification of these chemicals as synthetic.

Jurado is represented by Michael R. Reese and George V. Granade of Reese LLP, and by Jason P. Sultzer, Joseph Lipari, and Adam Gonnelli of The Sultzer Law Group PC.

The Earthbath Pet Products Class Action Lawsuit is Ricardo Jurado v. Earthbath Inc., Case No. 2:18-cv-05619-JFB-AKT, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.