St. Ives Apricot Scrub
December 2018: A federal judge granted the company’s motion for summary judgment finding that claims regarding the company’s failure to disclose information about the facial scrub failed because plaintiffs did not show that the product was a safety hazard or defective and did not have proof that the scrub caused the alleged harm. The judge also concluded that plaintiffs failed to allege that the “Dermatologist Tested” claims were misleading because the phrase does not represent that the product is recommended or approved by Dermatologists.
December 2016: A false advertising class-action lawsuit was filed against Unilever. The complaint alleges that the company misleadingly markets St. Ives Apricot Scrub as a facial scrub that “deeply exfoliates to reveal smooth skin,” has been “dermatologist tested,” and is “non-comedogenic” (i.e., the product does not cause blackheads) when, according to the plaintiffs, the scrub causes skin damage, is not recommended by dermatologists, and contains highly comedogenic ingredients (ones that cause blackheads by blocking the skin’s pores). (Browning et al v. Unilever United States, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-2210, C. D. CA.)
Class-Action Tracker
St. Ives Lotions and Body Washes
The Latest
TINA.org Supports FTC’s ‘Click to Cancel’ Rule against Industry Challenge
Companies should not be able to trap consumers into subscriptions that they do not want.
Consumers Throw Flags on Super Bowl Advertisers
Six big game marketers that have been accused of fumbling ad claims.
Most Deceptive Ads of 2023
Some of the worst ads TINA.org covered this year.
Hair-Raising Claims by Unilever’s Nutrafol Reported to Regulators
TINA.org files complaint with the FDA and FTC over company’s hair growth claims.
Consumer Alert: Hair Growth Products
Supplement and serum companies are targeting consumers experiencing hair loss.