SEAN MCGINITY V. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, No. 22-15080 (9th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff contended that P&G’s packaging “represents that the Products are natural, when, in fact, they contain nonnatural and synthetic ingredients, harsh and potentially harmful ingredients, and are substantially unnatural.” Plaintiff stated that if he had known when he purchased them that the products were not “from nature or otherwise natural,” he would not have purchased the products or paid a price premium for the products. Plaintiff asserted claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”), and California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”).
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of Plaintiff’s action alleging that P&G violated California consumer protection laws by labeling some of its products with the words “Nature Fusion” in bold, capitalized text, with an image of an avocado on a green leaf. The panel held that there was some ambiguity as to what “Nature Fusion” means in the context of its packaging, and it must consider what additional information other than the front label was available to consumers of the P&G products. Here, the front label containing the words “Nature Fusion” was not misleading— rather, it was ambiguous. Upon seeing the back label, it would be clear to a reasonable consumer that avocado oil is the natural ingredient emphasized in P&G’s labeling and marketing. With the entire product in hand, the panel concluded that no reasonable consumer would think that the products were either completely or substantially natural. The survey results did not make plausible the allegation that the phrase “Nature Fusion” was misleading.
Court Description: Product Labeling The panel affirmed the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) dismissal of Sean McGinity’s action alleging that The Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”) violated California consumer protection laws by labeling some of its products with the words “Nature Fusion” in bold, capitalized text, with an image of an avocado on a green leaf.
McGinity contended that P&G’s packaging “represents that the Products are natural, when, in fact, they contain non-natural and synthetic ingredients, harsh and potentially harmful ingredients, and are substantially unnatural.” McGinity stated that if he had known when he purchased them that the products were not “from nature or otherwise natural,” he would not have purchased the products or paid a price premium for the products. McGinity asserted claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”), and California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”).
McGinity’s claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA are governed by the “reasonable consumer” standard. The panel held that there was some ambiguity as to what “Nature Fusion” means in the context of its packaging, and it must consider what additional information other than the front label was available to consumers of the P&G products. The panel rejected McGinity’s contention that circuit precedent precluded P&G from relying on the back ingredient list to derive the meaning of “Nature Fusion.” Here, the front label containing the words “Nature Fusion” was not misleading—rather, it was ambiguous. Upon seeing the back label, it would be clear to a reasonable consumer that avocado oil is the natural ingredient emphasized in P&G’s labeling and marketing.
McGinity relied heavily on the results of the consumer survey that his counsel had commissioned from a third party. The panel held that although it accepted the allegations concerning the survey as true at this stage of litigation, the survey was not particularly instructive or helpful in deciding this case. Here, the survey participants did not have access to the back label of the products. This omission to a degree undermined the extent to which the panel could fairly rely on the survey results as being instructive of how the “reasonable consumer” understood the phrase “Nature Fusion” in the context of the products. Rather than demonstrating that the phrase “Nature Fusion” was misleading, the survey results confirmed that it was ambiguous. With the entire product in hand, the panel concluded that no reasonable consumer would think that the products were either completely or substantially natural. The survey results did not make plausible the allegation that the phrase “Nature Fusion” was misleading.
Judge Gould, joined by Judge Berzon, concurred.
Although McGinity did not successfully show that P&G’s “Nature Fusion” labeling was deceptive as a matter of law, he wrote separately to express his view that P&G’s labeling nonetheless resembled a concerning practice known as “greenwashing.” Greenwashing refers to a set of deceptive marketing practices in which an entity publicly misrepresents or exaggerates the positive environmental impact or attributes of a product. Here, although there was only one natural ingredient in the products, the word “Nature” was in bold, capitalized text on the front labels and was one of the largest words on the bottles, second only to the brand name, “Pantene.”
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.