905 F. Supp. 2d 1013
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- This case challenges defendants' use of the terms “all natural,” “pure natural,” and “pure, natural & organic” on cosmetic labels; plaintiffs allege these terms are false and misleading because products contain artificial/synthetic materials.
- Plaintiffs assert six California-law claims: fraud, unlawful/unfair/fraudulent business practices under the UCL, false advertising, and CLRA.
- FDA has no cosmetic-specific “natural” policy; FDCA governs labeling generally and the court weighs federal regulation against state-law claims.
- Cosmetics labeling falls under FDA regulation with extensive rules; there is no FDA definition of “natural” for cosmetics, and current FDA informal policy statements address food labeling only.
- The court applies the primary jurisdiction doctrine, finding FDA expertise should guide regulation, and dismisses the SAC without prejudice (stay of discovery denied as moot).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether primary jurisdiction bars the state claims | Astiana asserts court can decide mislabeling issue | Pom Wonderful requires FDA guidance, not court ruling | Yes, claims barred; dismissal without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 679 F.3d 1170 (9th Cir.2012) (deference to FDA in labeling regulation; do not undermine agency judgments)
- Syntek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. v. Microchip Technology, Inc., 307 F.3d 775 (9th Cir.2002) (primary jurisdiction factors for staying/dismissing in deference to agency)