‘Natural’ ChapStick Is Misrepresented, Class Action Lawsuit Says

Natural ChapStick isn’t 100% natural as advertised and contains synthetic ingredients, according to a recent class action lawsuit.

Plaintiff Lisa Moore says she and other consumers were misled by GlaxoSmithKline’s representations that their ChapStick products are “100% Natural.” If Moore and other consumers had known the truth about the products, the plaintiff contends that they would not have purchased the products or paid as much for them.

Moore challenges several ChapStick products including ChapStick 100% Natural Lip Butter, ChapStick Total Hydration 100% Natural Lip Balm, ChapStick Total Hydration Essential Oils Lip Balm, ChapStick Total Hydration Moisture + Tint Lip Balm, Total Hydration Moisture + Tint SPF 15 Lip Balm, and ChapStick Total Hydration Natural Lip Scrub.

These products were reportedly advertised with misleadingly label statements such as “100% Natural,” “Natural,” “Naturally Sourced Ingredients,” and “100% Naturally Sourced Ingredients.”

Despite these representations, the “natural” ChapStick products allegedly contain several non-natural ingredients including the following:

• Carmine: A dye derived from crushed bugs and an acidic alcohol solution. Moore notes that this dye is no longer classified as “natural” due to the severe allergic reactions it can cause.
• Flavor: This catchall ingredient reportedly serves as an umbrella for synthetic additives which mimic the taste of natural ingredients such as real vanilla.
• Fragrance: Similar to “flavor,” this ingredient can include a number of synthetic compounds including petroleum byproducts such as “benzene derivatives, aldehydes, toluene, and other known toxic chemicals.”
• Tocopherols: Substances classified as synthetic under federal regulations, even when they are extracted from natural oils. These ingredients are reportedly extracted through unnatural processes such as molecular distillation, solvent extraction, or absorption chromatography.

Moore says that she did not expect these and other unnatural ingredients to be found in a purportedly “natural” product. Unfortunately, the plaintiff and countless other consumers were allegedly misled by product representations as they tried to find natural products to suit their needs.

“Consumers value natural products for numerous reasons, including perceived benefits of avoiding diseases, attaining health and wellness, helping the environment, assisting local farmers, assisting factory workers who would otherwise be exposed to synthetic and hazardous substances, and financially supporting the companies that share these values,” the natural ChapStick class action lawsuit notes.

Due to the value placed on natural ingredients, authorities such as the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have issued regulations to standardize “natural” advertisements.

The USDA has strict definitions of marketing terms such as “synthetic” while the FTC requires manufacturers to be able to substantiate their “natural” marketing if consumers can interpret these claims in certain ways.

“Unfortunately, rather than creating the natural products consumers desire, Defendants have chosen instead to market the Products through deceptive labeling and advertising in order to convince consumers the products are natural when, in reality, they contain synthetic and artificial ingredients,” Moore contends in her natural ChapStick class action lawsuit.

According to the natural ChapStick class action lawsuit, consumers are willing to pay a higher price for products advertised as “natural” as these products are assumed to contain no non-natural, synthetic, artificial, or highly processed ingredients.

This was reportedly the case with the natural ChapStick products. Moore and other consumers were allegedly deceived into purchasing the products and even paying a higher price based on false representations about their “natural” ingredients.

According to Moore, this caused her and other purchasers to sustain financial injuries.

Moore seeks to represent a Class of consumers who purchased ChapStick 100% Natural Lip Butter, ChapStick Total Hydration 100% Natural Lip Balm, ChapStick Total Hydration Essential Oils Lip Balm, ChapStick Total Hydration Moisture + Tint Lip Balm, Total Hydration Moisture + Tint SPF 15 Lip Balm, or ChapStick Total Hydration Natural Lip Scrub. She also seeks to represent a subclass of the same purchasers from California.

On behalf of herself and the proposed Classes, Moore seeks an order from the Court requiring GlaxoSmithKline to change their marketing, restitution, disgorgement, monetary damages, punitive damages, interest, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.

Did you purchase natural ChapStick products? Are you surprised to find that the products may not be natural as advertised? Let us know in the comment section below.

Moore and the proposed Class are represented by Ryan J. Clarkson, Shireen M. Clarkson, and Katherine A. Bruce of Clarkson Law Firm PC along with Christopher D. Moon and Kevin O. Moon of Moon Law APC.

The Natural ChapStick Class Action Lawsuit is Lisa M. Moore v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings US LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-09077, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Selsun Blue Natural Anti-Dandruff Shampoo Isn’t Natural, Claims Class Action Lawsuit
• New Class Action Lawsuit Challenges Benefiber Natural Fiber Supplement Labeling
• Survivor Fights Against Dismissal of Hotel Sex Trafficking Lawsuit
• Were You Affected by the R1 RCM Ransomware Attack?