Case over petroleum jelly product labels beats rash of dismissal motions

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (CN) — A woman claiming false advertising of petroleum jelly products received a healing balm on Wednesday when a federal judge ruled her two putative class actions survived motions to dismiss.

Lacey Timmins filed suit in the Eastern District of California last year against Walmart and Unilever United States, arguing that their respective baby petroleum jelly products, labeled as “hypoallergenic,” had fragrance — a known allergen. She had bought the items to help her son’s eczema and diaper rash.

Both companies moved to dismiss the respective complaints, arguing the word “hypoallergenic” was vague and Timmins should have examined the back label.

U.S. District Judge Daniel Calabretta dismissed a claim of express and implied warranty against Walmart, as Timmins didn’t inform the company when she bought their product in 2022. Lacking more information about the time between she discovered the fragrance and alerted Walmart, the judge wrote he couldn’t determine if Timmins provided reasonable notice.

However, Calabretta ruled that all of the woman’s other claims against the two companies — including violations of the state’s false advertising and unfair competition laws, along with unjust enrichment and fraud by omission or intentional misrepresentation — could proceed. Additionally, Unilever also faces the warranty claims.

“The term ‘hypoallergenic’ communicates to reasonable consumers that a product is specifically formulated to minimize the risk of allergic reactions and is free from common allergens,” Timmins says in her suit against Walmart. “Defendant’s inclusion of fragrance ingredients directly contradicts this claim.”

While slightly different, Calabretta’s two rulings have many similarities.

The judge ruled that the suits pass a basic legal hurdle, as they specify essential elements like who committed the misconduct, where and when it happened, what occurred and how.

Timmins’ complaints also properly accused the petroleum jelly products as being false or misleading, Calabretta ruled.

“Plaintiff also bases her interpretation on dictionary definitions that define ‘hypoallergenic’ as ‘having little likelihood of causing an allergic reaction’ or ‘designed to reduce or minimize the possibility of an allergic response,’” the judge wrote in his Unilever ruling. “As such, the court holds that plaintiff’s definition is plausible.”

In the Walmart ruling, Calabretta wrote that laws like the Consumer Legal Remedies Act hinge on the reasonable consumer standard, meaning that Timmins must show a reasonable person likely would be deceived. As a reasonable shopper would interpret “hypoallergenic” as meaning its risk of allergic reactions are minimized, then people likely would be deceived.

While the express and implied warranty claims failed in the Walmart case, the judge ruled they passed muster in the Unilever suit.

Unilever argued that express warranty, dealing with a product’s condition of quality, didn’t apply, as “hypoallergenic” had no standard definition. However, Calabretta wrote that he already found Timmins’ definition sufficient.

The judge also kept the implied warranty claim intact against Unilever.

The company said that Timmins had no contract with it and that implied warranty didn’t apply. But Calabretta said the claim fell under a food and drug exemption.

“Moreover, defendant intends the ‘consumers’ to be the individuals like plaintiff who purchase the product at distributor’s stores,” the judge wrote. “There is no intermediary authority like a doctor who plaintiff or similarly situated individuals typically rely on in selecting the product.”

The companies also opposed Timmins’ request for restitution and injunctive relief to bar the company from making misleading labels.

Calabretta ruled that nothing supports dismissing a restitution claim at this stage of the legal proceedings and that Timmins has standing to seek injunctive relief, as she currently buys similar products and might buy the companies’ products again, if the labels were accurate.

Calabretta also declined to limit the putative class action claims, as he’d need to perform an analysis and doesn’t yet have all the facts.

“This determination is proper upon a motion for class certification, not a motion to dismiss, and thus it would be premature for the court to dismiss class claims at this stage,” he wrote.

The parties could not immediately be reached for comment.