York v. Andalou Naturals, Inc.
3:16-cv-00894
S.D. Ill.Dec 8, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs Cassandra York and Stephanie Teachout filed a putative nationwide class action (with Illinois and Missouri subclasses) alleging Andalou Naturals marketed hair products as "natural" while containing synthetic/potentially harmful ingredients.
- Claims: violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA), Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), unjust enrichment, and breach of express warranty.
- Defendant moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing lack of standing/mootness for York, forum-shopping, failure to state consumer-fraud, unjust-enrichment, and warranty claims, and that primary jurisdiction over the term "natural" counseled dismissal or stay.
- Plaintiffs allege Andalou intended consumers to rely on "naturals" representations, that ingredient lists include synthetics (e.g., sodium benzoate, citric acid, potassium sorbate), and that consumers would be misled and harmed.
- The Court treated the complaint under Twombly/Iqbal notice-pleading standards, accepted allegations as true, and denied dismissal in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing / mootness | York retained live claims; she rejected defendant's prior tendered relief. | York's claims were mooted by a tender of full relief in state court. | Denied mootness: unaccepted offer does not moot (Campbell-Ewald principle). |
| Forum shopping / prior state filings | Plaintiffs may dismiss and refile; they control the forum. | Plaintiffs improperly forum-shopped by dismissing state suits first. | Denied: voluntary prior dismissals do not justify dismissal. |
| Consumer-fraud under ICFA and MMPA | Labels and branding as "naturals" were material, intended to induce reliance, and plausibly deceptive despite ingredient lists. | Reasonable consumers know cosmetics may contain synthetics; ingredient lists defeat deception claims (Murphy/ingredient-list defense). | Denied dismissal: factual issue for later; ingredient-list defense insufficient at pleading stage. |
| Primary jurisdiction re: meaning of "natural" | Court can adjudicate consumer-deception claims; FDA has declined to define "natural" and shown no interest. | Dispute requires agency expertise; refer to FDA under primary jurisdiction. | Denied: no agency interest shown; primary jurisdiction not appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (setting plausibility standard for complaints)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (applying Twombly plausibility framework)
- Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (unaccepted settlement offers do not moot claims)
- De Bouse v. Bayer, 922 N.E.2d 309 (Ill. 2009) (elements of an ICFA claim)
- Rickher v. Home Depot, 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008) (ICFA standards in Seventh Circuit)
- Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2008) (ingredient list does not automatically defeat reasonable-consumer deception claim)
- Nader v. Alleghany Airlines, 426 U.S. 290 (1976) (purpose of primary jurisdiction doctrine)
- Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. 258 (1993) (primary jurisdiction suspends but does not divest jurisdiction)