St. Ives Apricot Scrub Class Action Says Product Causes Skin Damage

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 are suing the makers of St. Ives Apricot Scrub, claiming the product actually causes skin damage.

Plaintiffs Kaylee Browning and Sarah Basile are challenging defendant Unilever United States Inc. over its inclusion of crushed walnut shells in its St. Ives Apricot Scrub.

Crushed walnut shells damage the skin in a way that makes it completely unsuitable for use in a skin care product, the plaintiffs claim.

Browning and Basile quote assessments from a slew of skin care professionals decrying the use of abrasives like crushed walnut shells on facial skin.

One dermatologist quoted in a 2015 New York Magazine article said that “[l]arge, hard, and sandlike rocks” like those in St. Ives Apricot Scrub are “too abrasive for the face’s thin skin.”

Another dermatologist said using crushed walnut shells is like “using sandpaper on your face.” It can cause inflammation and irritation that can accelerate the aging process, the dermatologist said.

Still another skincare expert interviewed in the New York Magazine article said that abrasive scrubs create “micro-tears” in the skin, and that this damage makes the skin “more vulnerable to environmental damages, pollution, and sun damage.”

The plaintiffs also quote a blog post from an esthetician, who explains that the tiny tears in the skin caused by walnut shell powder allow bacteria to enter. The scrubbing action causes inflammation of the skin, which itself makes pores swell and close, promoting the development of acne, according to this esthetician.

“Accordingly, St. Ives is unfit to be sold or used as a facial scrub,” the plaintiffs claim. “The product is completely worthless.”

Browning and Basile allege the defendant knows this about its own product, since it advertises St. Ives Apricot Scrub as being “dermatologist tested.” Yet despite knowing this, Unilever does not disclose that the product causes skin damage or that it is not actually recommended by dermatologists, the plaintiffs claim.

The class action also challenges Unilever’s representation that St. Ives Apricot Scrub is “non-comedogenic,” i.e. that it does not tend to clog pores. They claim several of the product’s ingredients are in fact highly comedogenic.

Both Browning and Basile say they purchased St. Ives Apricot Scrub at times within the past three years – Browning in California, and Basile in New York.

Both say they relied on the defendant’s marketing of the product as suitable for use as a facial scrub when they chose to buy it. They allege they never would have bought St. Ives facial scrub if the defendant had disclosed that it causes skin damage.

Browning and Basile propose to represent a nationwide Class consisting of all persons in the U.S. who purchased St. Ives Apricot Scrub. They also propose to represent two subclasses, each from their respective home states of California and New York.

They are asking the court for an injunction preventing the defendant from continuing the alleged false advertising. They also seek an award of damages, restitution, court costs and attorneys’ fees.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys L. Timothy Fisher, Joel D. Smith and Scott A. Bursor of Bursor & Fisher PA.

The St. Ives Apricot Scrub Class Action Lawsuit is Kaylee Browning, et al. v. Unilever United States Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-2210, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.