McWhorter v. The Procter & Gamble Company, 3:24-cv-00806

Plaintiffs filed a class action against Procter & Gamble (P&G) alleging that labels on Pantene and Herbal Essences shampoos and conditioners mislead consumers regarding the percentage of "natural origin" or "naturally derived" ingredients in those products.
The challenged labels included prominent front-label percentage claims (e.g., "90% Natural Origin") with explanatory definitions on the back, detailing P&G’s criteria for what constitutes “natural origin” or "naturally derived."
Plaintiffs claimed they believed the front-label claims meant that the stated percentage of total ingredients (by number or across other reasonable measures) were natural, and that this was false or misleading.
Plaintiffs did not review or allege reliance on the back-label explanatory statements, and had not performed product testing before the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, common law fraud/deceit/misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation, seeking to represent a California purchaser class.
P&G moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and for lack of standing; the court granted the motion on the pleadings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Judicial Estoppel	P&G took inconsistent positions about synthetic/natural origin ingredients in prior litigation	No factual concession in prior case; definitions differ and not inconsistent	No estoppel; arguments not clearly inconsistent
Reasonable Consumer Test	Labels are misleading—consumers think % natural origin means % of ingredients are natural	Labels are defined on the back; reasonable consumers are not misled with an explanation	Not misleading as a matter of law; front label ambiguity resolved by back label
Omission Liability	P&G omitted material details about ingredient calculations	No duty to disclose, and no actionable omission	No duty to disclose; omission theory fails
Negligent Misrepresentation/Economic Loss Rule	Negligent misrepresentation supports damages for economic loss	Claims for pure economic loss are barred in tort	Dismissed under economic loss rule
Fraud	P&G knowingly made false statements about label meaning using ISO standard	No knowing misrepresentation; standard used does not show fraud	Dismissed; no knowing falsity alleged

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausible claims)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading facial plausibility)
Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (reasonable consumer test for label deception)
Hamilton v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 270 F.3d 778 (judicial estoppel standard)
Lazar v. Superior Ct., 12 Cal. 4th 631 (elements of fraud under California law)