Fleming v. Dr. Squatch, LLC, 1:22-cv-04842

Lauren Fleming sued Dr. Squatch, LLC, claiming the labeling on its "MEN’S NATURAL SHAMPOO" was deceptive because it described the product as “natural” and highlighted ingredients (oat protein, jojoba oil, honey) that were not present in the amounts consumers would expect, and other ingredients were allegedly synthetic.
Fleming brought the case individually and as a putative class action, seeking damages and injunctive relief based on Illinois consumer fraud laws and related legal claims.
Dr. Squatch moved to dismiss, arguing that a reasonable consumer could not be misled, and challenging the sufficiency of the pleadings for consumer fraud, warranty, negligence, fraud, and unjust enrichment claims.
The core of the dispute was whether calling the shampoo “natural” was misleading under consumer protection law, especially given the full ingredient list and disclosures.
The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, allowing consumer fraud and unjust enrichment claims to proceed while dismissing other claims, including for warranty and injunctive relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Deceptive Labeling (Consumer Fraud)	"Natural" and key ingredients labeling mislead consumers.	No plausible definition of "natural," info available online.	Sufficiently pled; claim may proceed.
Warranty Claims	Product failed to meet express/implied warranty for "natural" claims.	Lack of pre-suit notice; Plaintiff didn't meet requirements.	Dismissed; Plaintiff failed pre-suit notice req.
Negligent Misrepresentation	Misinformation about natural ingredients caused economic harm.	Barred by economic loss doctrine.	Dismissed under economic loss doctrine.
Fraud	Defendant knowingly misrepresented product as "natural."	Allegations too conclusory, lack sufficient detail.	Dismissed for failure to plead with particularity.
Unjust Enrichment	Defendant profited unfairly from deceptive labeling.	Duplicative of consumer fraud claim.	May proceed as alternative to consumer fraud.
Injunctive Relief	Fleming cannot rely on labeling, needs court order to remedy future harm.	No standing; aware of deception, harm is speculative.	Dismissed; no standing for injunctive relief.

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standards for Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for complaints)
Benson v. Fannie May Confections Brands, Inc., 944 F.3d 639 (deceptive practices under consumer fraud laws)
Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 403 (ICFA violation elements defined)
Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 174 Ill. 2d 482 (fraud claim elements and warranty notice requirements)
Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Nat’l Tank Co., 91 Ill. 2d 69 (economic loss doctrine and exceptions)
Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732 (consumer fraud pleading standards)