ChapStick Class Action Says Lip Balms Aren’t ‘100% 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.

Two plaintiffs say the “100% natural” labeling on certain ChapStick lip balms is false and deceptive.

Plaintiffs Rachel Tyman and Johnathan Robinson say Pfizer’s ChapStick Total Hydration line of lip balms is mislabeled in a way that deceives consumers into paying more for the products than they otherwise would.

They claim labeling that says the products are “100% natural” is false because they actually contain synthetic chemicals.

According to the ChapStick class action lawsuit, Pfizer represents the Fresh Citrus, Soothing Vanilla and Honey Blossom varieties of its ChapStick Total Hydration lip balms as being 100 percent natural.

Product packaging and television ads promote the products as being “100% natural,” “age-defying” and “clinically proven,” the plaintiffs say.

In fact, plaintiffs claim that these products contain tocopherol acetate, tocopherols, octyldodecanol, hydrogenated and partially hydrogenated soybean oil, caprylic/capric triglyceride, and glyceryl stearate.

The class action alleges that these ingredients are synthetic and unnatural. The plaintiffs argue that no reasonable consumer would consider a product “100% natural” if it contained any of these ingredients.

Plaintiffs also challenge Pfizer’s representations that the ChapStick products at issue are “clinically proven” and that they give the user “healthier,” “more youthful looking lips.” No such clinical testing has been done, they claim.

They say a search of Pfizer’s own clinical test reports and of the clinical trial registry maintained by the U.S. National Institutes of Health revealed no reports of clinical tests being done on ChapStick products.

“The Products have not been clinically tested and there are no competent and reliable scientific studies showing that the Mislabeled ChapStick Products are clinically proven to provide any of the advertised benefits,” according to the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs argue that by deceiving consumers about the ingredients in ChapStick Total Hydration products, Pfizer has been able to command a premium price for them.

Consumers are not in a position to evaluate whether or not representations about clinical testing or the naturalness of ingredients are truthful, the plaintiffs say.

Robinson and Tyman both allege they bought Total Hydration Fresh Citrus variety of ChapStick in reliance on the “100% NATURAL” and “Clinically Proven” representations at issue here. Tyman says she bought hers in Florida, and Robinson says he bought his in New York state.

The plaintiffs propose to represent a nationwide Class consisting of all persons in the U.S. who bought the allegedly mislabeled ChapStick products during the applicable statute of limitations period. Each of the plaintiffs also proposes to represent a subclass consisting of Class Members from their respective home states of Florida and New York.

They seek an award of damages, restitution and disgorgement of revenues gained via the alleged mislabeling, and reimbursement of court costs and attorneys’ fees, all with pre- and post-judgment interest.

Rachel and Johnathan are represented by attorneys Kim E. Richman of The Richman Law Group, Joshua H. Eggnatz and Michael J. Pascucci of Eggnatz, Lopatin & Pascucci LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett and James C. Shah of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah LLP, and Jayne A. Goldstein of Pomerantz LLP.

The ChapStick Total Hydration Class Action Lawsuit is Tyman, et al. v. Pfizer Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-06941, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.