Sean McGinity v. the Procter & Gamble Company
69 F.4th 1093
| 9th Cir. | 2023Background
- Plaintiff Sean McGinity bought Pantene Pro‑V “Nature Fusion” shampoo and conditioner whose front labels say “NATURE FUSION” in bold and show an avocado on a green leaf.
- McGinity alleges he paid a premium believing the products were natural but claims they contain largely synthetic ingredients.
- Counsel commissioned a consumer survey (400+ participants) showing mixed interpretations: roughly half thought “Nature Fusion” meant no synthetics or all‑natural, while many respondents understood it to mean a mix of natural and synthetic ingredients; survey participants did not see back labels.
- McGinity sued under California’s UCL, FAL, and CLRA; the district court dismissed his second amended complaint for failure to plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would be deceived.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding the front label was ambiguous (not unambiguously deceptive) and that the back label (ingredients and phrases like “NatureFusion® Smoothing System With Avocado Oil”) resolves the ambiguity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “Nature Fusion” is misleading under the California "reasonable consumer" standard | “Nature Fusion” conveys that the products are natural or predominantly natural; a reasonable consumer would be deceived and pay a premium | The phrase is ambiguous or conveys a mix of natural and synthetic ingredients; not unambiguously deceptive | Ambiguous; not plausibly misleading as a matter of law given available packaging information |
| Whether the back label/ingredient list may be considered to defeat a deception claim | Back labeling should not be used to cure or justify a deceptive front label | When the front label is ambiguous (not unambiguously deceptive), the back label can clarify meaning | Court may consider back label when front is ambiguous; here it clarifies presence of both avocado oil and synthetics |
| Whether Plaintiff's consumer survey supports plausibility of deception | Survey shows a significant share of consumers interpret “Nature Fusion” as meaning no synthetics or all‑natural | Survey is flawed because participants lacked access to back labels and questions didn’t resolve the core ambiguity | Survey is unhelpful: it demonstrates ambiguity and lacks context (no back label), so it does not make plausible a deception claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016) (reasonable‑consumer standard requires probability that a significant portion of consumers could be misled)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (ingredients list cannot be used to cure an unambiguously deceptive front label; ingredient list should confirm front representations)
- Moore v. Trader Joe’s Co., 4 F.4th 874 (9th Cir. 2021) (ambiguity in front labeling may require reference to other packaging/context for reasonable consumer analysis)
- Moore v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., 966 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2020) (back‑of‑package ingredients can confirm or conflict with front claims; relevance depends on whether front is unambiguously deceptive)
- Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, Inc., 945 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2019) (consumer surveys must be carefully designed and address the core interpretive question to be probative)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard: complaints must state plausible claims for relief)