Wiggins v. Unilever United States, Inc.
1:21-cv-01964
S.D.N.Y.Mar 31, 2024Background
- Plaintiff Craig Wiggins, proceeding alone after prior co-plaintiffs exited, sought to amend his consumer class action alleging that Unilever mislabels Dove body washes as "hypoallergenic" when they contain chemicals (MI, CAPB, DMDM hydantoin, and niacinamide) known to cause allergic reactions in some people.
- The court had previously dismissed his and others' claims but permitted leave to amend if plaintiffs could substantiate that the chemicals are present in the products at concentrations sufficient to cause harm, or that necessary information to prove the claim is exclusively held by Unilever.
- Wiggins’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC) included new details attempting to establish the concentrations and allergenic potential of the chemicals in Dove products, and claimed renewed standing for injunctive relief due to "recurring confusion."
- The SAC also attempted to address prior issues with pre-litigation notice for breach of warranty by alleging notification to Unilever within eight months of discovery.
- The court evaluated whether the claims regarding misrepresentation, standing for injunctive relief, and breach of warranty were adequately pled under Rule 12(b)(6) standards for plausibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for Injunctive Relief | Wiggins argued he could be harmed again due to uncertainty and possible need to repurchase Dove products | Unilever: No likelihood of future harm after learning of alleged misrepresentation | No standing; Wiggins is now aware and unlikely to be harmed in the same way |
| GBL §§ 349, 350 (False/Deceptive Advertising) | Dove’s "hypoallergenic" labels are misleading given chemical content in amounts causing allergies | Ingredients/concentrations not clearly proven; scientific/label evidence insufficient; claims speculative | Allegations speculative; insufficient factual basis; dismissed |
| Breach of Express Warranty | Notice to Unilever via certified mail and original complaint were timely | Only pre-suit, non-litigation notice can suffice (not initial complaint filing) | Complaint does not constitute pre-litigation notice; claim fails |
| Factual Sufficiency (Chemicals/Concentration) | Provided studies, comparison models, and cited ingredient orders as evidence of concentrations | Product labels, not web screenshots, control; comparison/speculation on concentrations is not enough | No direct evidence that Dove products contain chemicals at harmful concentrations |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for plausibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (Rule 12(b)(6) plausibility standard)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (Article III standing requirements)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env’t Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (separate standing for each form of relief)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (injury-in-fact requirement for standing)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (class representation and standing)