Skye Astiana v. the Hain Celestial Group

Caution
783 F.3d 753·2015 WL 1600205·2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 5833
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 10, 201512-17596California3,927 words

Opinion

Opinion

McKEOWN, J.

A product labeled “all natural” or “pure natural” likely evokes images of ground herbs and earth extracts rather than chemicals such as “Polysorbate 20” or “Hydroxycitronellal.” This class action alleges that false or misleading product labels duped consumers seeking natural cosmetics into purchasing products that were chock-full of artificial and synthetic ingredients. Although the underlying question of what constitutes a “natural” cosmetic poses a fascinating question, it is not the one we answer. Instead, this appeal requires us to decide whether federal preemption or the primary jurisdiction doctrine prevents the district court from deciding when a “natural” label on cosmetic products is false or misleading.

We conclude that the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. (“FDCA”), does not expressly preempt California’s state law causes of action that create consumer remedies for false or misleading cosmetics labels. Although the district court properly invoked the primary jurisdiction doctrine, it erred by dismissing the case rather than issuing a stay pending potential agency, action by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). On remand, the district…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.