Neutrogena class action alleges company falsely labels shampoo as containing no preservatives

Neutrogena class action lawsuit overview:

• Who: Plaintiff Melissa Gonick filed a class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc.
• Why: Johnson & Johnson allegedly labels one of its Neutrogena shampoo products as “preservative-free” even though it contains the preservative citric acid.
• Where: The Neutrogena preservatives lawsuit was filed in New York federal court.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. falsely markets its Neutrogena T/Sal Therapeutic Shampoo as “preservative-free” even though it does contain a preservative, a Neutrogena class action lawsuit filed Jan. 16 in New York federal court alleges.

Plaintiff Melissa Gonick says she purchased the Neutrogena shampoo numerous times and believed the “preservative-free” claim on the label meant the product contained no preservatives. The hair product actually contains citric acid, which is known to be a preservative, the Neutrogena shampoo class action claims.

Gonick says she would not have purchased the Neutrogena shampoo or would have paid less for it if she had known that Johnson & Johnson falsely advertised the product as preservative-free.

Neutrogena claim of no preservatives is false due to citric acid ingredient, plaintiff says

The Neutrogena class action lawsuit notes the hair product lists citric acid in its inactive ingredients list despite being labeled elsewhere as preservative-free.

“Citric acid is a preservative,” the Neutrogena class action lawsuit states. Citric acid is commonly added to increase the shelf life of cosmetics and skin care products, according to the complaint. 

Gonick claims J&J’s intent is not important because citric acid functions as a preservative in the product even if it was added to perform a different function.

She says J&J misrepresented the Neutrogena shampoo to “capitalize on consumers’ preference for products with no preservatives.”

“Indeed, the preservative-free cosmetics market has experienced growth, driven by consumer demand for natural and chemical-free beauty products,” the Neutrogena preservatives lawsuit says. 

“[R]esearch demonstrates that a majority of consumers place importance on preservative-free claims,” the complaint asserts.

Gonick filed the Neutrogena class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and others who purchased the shampoo.

The Neutrogena shampoo class action lawsuit asserts claims for violations of New York General Business Law, breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.

Last year, a federal judge dismissed a class action lawsuit claiming J&J’s Aveeno Baby products were falsely advertised as being made specifically for babies even though they are allegedly the same as adult versions.

Do you think the Neutrogena no preservatives claim is false and misleading? Tell us your thoughts in the comments.

Gonick is represented by Julian C. Diamond and Alec Leslie of Bursor & Fisher PA and Nick Suciu III, Erin J. Ruben and J. Hunter Bryson of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC.

The Neutrogena shampoo class action lawsuit is Melissa Gonick v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00312, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Supergoop class action claims sunscreen falsely advertised as SPF 40
• Lumineux class action alleges teeth whitener falsely advertises 30-min. work time
• Class action alleges Target ‘reef-conscious’ sunscreen contains ingredients dangerous to coral reefs
• Revlon class action claims company falsely advertises hair color as ammonia-free