St. Ives Apricot Scrub

December 2018: A federal judge granted the company’s motion for summary judgment finding that claims regarding the company’s failure to disclose information about the facial scrub failed because plaintiffs did not show that the product was a safety hazard or defective and did not have proof that the scrub caused the alleged harm. The judge also concluded that plaintiffs failed to allege that the “Dermatologist Tested” claims were misleading because the phrase does not represent that the product is recommended or approved by Dermatologists.

December 2016: A false advertising class-action lawsuit was filed against Unilever. The complaint alleges that the company misleadingly markets St. Ives Apricot Scrub as a facial scrub that “deeply exfoliates to reveal smooth skin,” has been “dermatologist tested,” and is “non-comedogenic” (i.e., the product does not cause blackheads) when, according to the plaintiffs, the scrub causes skin damage, is not recommended by dermatologists, and contains highly comedogenic ingredients (ones that cause blackheads by blocking the skin’s pores). (Browning et al v. Unilever United States, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-2210, C. D. CA.)

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , ,



Leave a Reply

Back to Top ↑
  • Search Class-Action Tracker



  • Recent Class Actions

  • The Class-Action Tracker is intended to notify consumers about false advertising class-action lawsuits filed around the country, but does not necessarily reflect TINA.org’s opinion with respect to the lawsuits or disposition of the cases

  • Sign Up for E-mail Updates