Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies
95 F. Supp. 3d 284
D. Conn.2015Background
- Aveeno sunscreen products bearing front-labels stating “natural protection” and “100% naturally-sourced sunscreen ingredients” are at issue; plaintiff alleges these claims mislead reasonable consumers into thinking all ingredients are natural.
- Plaintiff purchased Aveeno Baby Brand Natural Protection Lotion Sunscreen, Aveeno Brand Natural Protection Lotion Sunscreen, and Aveeno Baby Brand Natural Protection Face Stick based on the natural-ingredient representations.
- The products allegedly contain synthetic ingredients despite front-label promises of natural ingredients; the ingredient list on packaging may not clarify this to a reasonable consumer.
- Plaintiff asserts CUTPA claims (deceptive and unfair practices) and seeks relief for herself and a putative class; defendant moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court denies the motion to dismiss, finding the CUTPA claims plausibly alleged and not preempted or barred by primary jurisdiction.
- The factual dispute centers on whether front-label statements are deceptive despite the presence of a detailed ingredient list on the packaging.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CUTPA claims are viable given the labeling. | Langan argues front-label claims are deceptive/unfair. | Johnson & Johnson contends statements are literally true and not deceptive. | Plaintiff’s CUTPA claims plausibly alleged; not dismissed. |
| Preemption under the FDCA. | FDCA does not preempt state-law deception claims; labeling false under federal law. | FDCA preempts state requirements differing from federal labeling rules. | Not preempted; state-law claims survive. |
| Primary jurisdiction applicability. | FDA expertise should resolve meaning of “natural” in labeling. | FDA expertise governs scientific meaning; court should defer. | Primary jurisdiction does not apply; judicial interpretation appropriate. |
| Materiality and misleading nature of front-label language. | Reasonable consumer could interpret “natural” as applying to whole product. | Unambiguous message that only active sunscreen ingredients are natural. | Statements could mislead; not as a matter of law.” |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (reasonable consumer looks to front-label representations)
- Pom Wonderful LLC v. Coca-Cola Co., 134 S. Ct. 2228 (S. Ct. 2014) (Supreme Court reversal impact on primary jurisdiction discussions)
- Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos., Inc., 8 F. Supp. 3d 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (FDCA does not preempt deceptive-label claims under state law)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (U.S. 2009) (presumption against preemption in traditionally regulated fields)
- Altria Grp., Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70 (U.S. 2008) (advertising/labeling as field traditionally regulated by states)