Locklin
Locklin v. Strivectin Operating Company, Inc.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARTIN LOCKLIN, Case No. 21-cv-07967-VC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
v. MOTION TO DISMISS
STRIVECTIN OPERATING COMPANY, Re: Dkt. No. 27 INC., et al., Defendants.
StriVectin makes sunscreen products that it labels “REEF SAFE* SUNSCREEN.” The asterisk appears again on the back of the package, followed by fine print stating that the product does not contain two particular ingredients that are widely thought to harm coral reefs. The plaintiff alleges that the company’s sunscreen contains four other ingredients that endanger the reefs and that the label is therefore misleading. Assuming that the four ingredients do endanger the reefs, the “reef safe” label is misleading—the asterisk and the fine print do not immunize StriVectin against liability. Further, the plaintiff adequately alleges that a product with those ingredients endangers the reefs. The plaintiff has therefore stated a claim for violation of California’s consumer protection laws. I The plaintiff, Martin Locklin, bought a 1.5-ounce bottle of StriVectin’s “Full Screen Clear Finish” sunscreen for $39.00. He…