June 2018: A federal judge preliminarily approved a settlement of this lawsuit. According to the settlement terms, class members with proof of purchase may receive a full refund for every product purchased while class members without proof of purchase may receive a partial refund (in an amount that depends on the number and product purchased) for up to eight products purchased. In addition, the company agreed to make the following changes to the advertising but only for a period of three years:
- The front label of the Babyganics products at issue will refer consumers to the back label where the company will clarify the ingredients that are and are not organic;
- The word “natural” will be removed from the front label of the products at issue;
- The company will maintain a webpage for its “mineral-based” sunscreens where it defines “mineral-based” and explains that the sunscreens combine the protections of mineral and non-mineral barriers;
- The company agreed to test SPF 50+ sunscreens to determine the levels of active ingredients to ensure the marketing is accurate;
- On the back label of “tear free” products, the company agreed to state that the products should be kept out of the reach of children, should not be applied to the eyes, and eyes should be flushed with water if the products are applied directly to them; and
- The phrase “Plant-Based Ingredients” will not be used on pre-moistened wipes unless the wipes are made entirely from plants or the package lists the ingredients in the wipes.
A final fairness hearing is scheduled for November 14, 2018. For more information, go to http://www.babyganicssettlement.com/.
August 2017: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding a third named plaintiff, S.C. Johnson & Son as a defendant, as well as claiming that the companies market products as natural when, according to the complaint, they contain synthetic ingredients.
September 2016: A false advertising class-action lawsuit was filed against Babyganics, a company that sells baby care, sun protection, and cleaning products, for allegedly deceptively marketing products as organic when, according to the plaintiffs, they contain “minimal organic ingredients.” In addition, the complaint claims that the company deceptively labels sunscreens as “mineral-based” sunscreens that use physical sunscreens (i.e., ones that stay on top of the skin to deflect and scatter UV rays away from the skin) when they are actually a combination of physical sunscreens and chemical sunscreens (i.e., sunscreens that penetrate the skin and absorb UV radiation). (Mayhew et al v. KAS Direct, LLC d/b/a Babyganics, Case No. 16-cv-6981, S. D. NY.)
For more information about organic claims and TINA.org’s coverage of the issue, click here.
For more information about class-action lawsuits regarding sunscreen and TINA.org’s coverage of the product, click here.