Buonasera v. Honest Co.
208 F. Supp. 3d 555
S.D.N.Y.2016Background
- Plaintiff Brad Buonasera purchased two Honest Company hair-care products (Conditioning Detangler and Shampoo + Body Wash) and alleges labels represented the products as “natural,” “all natural,” “plant‑based,” and “no harsh chemicals (ever!).”
- Amended complaint alleges 39 additional Honest products contain synthetic/toxic ingredients and asserts GBL §§ 349 and 350, breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment on behalf of a putative New York class.
- Honest moved (via letters and pre‑motion conference) to dismiss for lack of standing (for unpurchased products and injunctive relief) and for failure to state claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court treated the correspondence as a formal motion and considered (1) Article III/class‑standing for unpurchased products, (2) standing for injunctive relief, and (3) merits challenges to GBL §§ 349/350, express warranty, and unjust enrichment.
- Court found plaintiff adequately alleged (a) personal injury from purchased products and (b) that the same alleged misrepresentations (nature of labels) implicate the same set of concerns as to unpurchased products, so class‑standing survives the motion to dismiss.
- Court held plaintiff lacks standing for injunctive relief (no plausible likelihood of future injury) and dismissed the injunctive‑relief and unjust‑enrichment claims, but denied dismissal of the remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to assert claims for products plaintiff did not buy | NECA‑style class standing is satisfied because all products use uniform misrepresentations and implicate the same set of concerns | Plaintiff lacks Article III standing for products he did not purchase; claims should be dismissed | Denied—court finds at pleading stage plaintiff plausibly alleges personal injury and that misrepresentations implicate the same concerns; class‑standing reserved for class certification if disputed later |
| Standing to seek injunctive relief | Plaintiff would consider future purchases if products were reformulated; injunctive relief appropriate | Plaintiff cannot show real or immediate threat of future harm because he does not allege likely future purchases | Granted—dismissed for lack of standing; past injury alone insufficient to seek injunction |
| GBL §§ 349 and 350 deceptive‑practice claims (are label terms too vague to be materially misleading?) | Whether labels ("natural," "plant‑based," "no harsh chemicals") are misleading is a factual question for the jury | Labels are amorphous/vague as a matter of law and cannot be materially deceptive; dismissal warranted | Denied—reasonableness inquiry is factual; not appropriate to resolve on 12(b)(6) motion |
| Breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment | Warranty: labels created express warranties relied on by plaintiff; Unjust enrichment: available as alternative/independent theory | Warranty: labels are non‑actionable puffery/vague; Unjust enrichment duplicates tort/contract claims and should be dismissed | Warranty claim survives (factual question); Unjust‑enrichment claim dismissed as duplicative of other pleaded remedies |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must be plausible, not merely speculative)
- NECA‑IBEW Health & Welfare Fund v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 693 F.3d 145 (class‑standing test: personal injury + same set of concerns)
- Nicosia v. Amazon, 834 F.3d 220 (plaintiffs lack standing for injunctive relief absent likelihood of future harm)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (injunctive relief requires present or imminent injury)