View
251
Download
1
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ROBBINS ARROYO LLP BRIAN J. ROBBINS (190264) KEVIN A. SEELY (199982) ASHLEY R. RIFKIND (246602) LEONID KANDINOV (279650) 600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com kseely@robbinsarroyo.com arifkind@robbinsarroyo.com lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC JACK FITZGERALD (257370) Hillcrest Professional Building 3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 692-3840 Facsimile: (619) 362-9555 jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AMY GLOVER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE HONEST COMPANY, INC., and JESSICA WARREN a/k/a JESSICA ALBA,
Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Case No.: CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: (1) VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMERS LEGAL REMEDIES ACT; (2) VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORINA FALSE ADVERITSING LAW; (3) VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW; (4) BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY; AND (5) VIOLATION OF THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
'16CV0812 NLSW
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 25
- 1 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff Amy Glover ("Plaintiff"), individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, by and through her undersigned counsel, hereby brings this
action against defendants The Honest Company, Inc. ("Honest" or the
"Company") and Honest's co-founder, Jessica Warren also known as Jessica Alba
("Alba") (collectively, the "Defendants"). Plaintiff alleges the following upon her
own knowledge, or where she lacks personal knowledge, upon information and
belief, including the investigation of her counsel.
INTRODUCTION
1. Defendant Honest claims to be a consumer goods company that is
"free from fraud or deception" because it is "genuine, real" and "respectable,
praiseworthy." The truth is, however, that Honest is effectively a marketing
company. It gets its products from other manufacturers and then places the
"Honest" label on them. It uses the "Honest" brand name, which is the subject of
numerous federal trademark and service mark registrations and applications, as a
marketing strategy to convey to consumers that the Company's business practices
and products are honest, truthful, and "free from fraud or deception." In so doing,
Honest intends for consumers, in making their purchasing decisions, to rely on this
overall commercial impression conveyed by the "Honest" brand name.
2. Chief among Honest's specific claims are that its products do not
contain sodium lauryl sulfate ("SLS"). Honest highlights the absence of SLS
because, according to Honest itself, SLS is a "known irritant. This is so well-
known, in fact, that it's commonly used in lab testing to intentionally harm skin."
3. Defendants' claims concerning the absence of SLS are untrue and
misleading. As Defendants admit, Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry
detergent, and dish soap contain an ingredient called sodium coco sulfate ("SCS").
SLS is a major ingredient in SCS and many scientists treat SLS and SCS as
interchangeable. In fact, independent testing has found that Honest's laundry
detergent contains the same amount of SLS as Proctor & Gamble Co.'s laundry
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 25
- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
detergent, Tide.
4. Plaintiff and California consumers were misled by Defendants'
statements regarding the absence of SLS from Honest's products, and the use of the
"Honest" brand name for Defendants' products, and bought these products based
on these false, misleading, and deceptive representations. Accordingly, Plaintiff
and the Class (as defined herein) have suffered injury as a result of Defendants'
false advertising, warranty breaches, misbranding, and unlawful marketing of
Honest's products, and brings this class action to remedy Defendants' unlawful
acts.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5. This Court has original jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted
herein under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2), because the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $5,000,000 exclusive of interest
and costs and more than two-thirds of the Class reside in states other than the states
in which Defendants are citizens. This Court also has original jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §1331 because this action raises a federal question under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§2301, et seq.
6. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, because
Plaintiff resides and suffered injury as a result of Defendants' acts in this district,
many of the acts and transactions giving rise to this action occurred in this district,
Defendants conduct substantial business in this district, Defendants have
intentionally availed themselves of the laws and markets of this district, and
Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this district.
PARTIES
7. Plaintiff purchased Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry detergent,
and dish soap. Plaintiff relied on Defendants' statements that Honest's multi-
surface cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soap did not contain SLS. Plaintiff
would not have purchased these products had she known they contained SLS.
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 3 of 25
- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Alternatively, at the very least, Plaintiff paid a premium for Honest's products due
to Defendants' representations that these products were SLS-free. Plaintiff is a
citizen of California.
8. Defendant Honest is a California citizen. It is in the process or has
moved its principal executive offices from 2700 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 1200,
Santa Monica, California, to 12130 Millennium Drive, Playa Vista, California.
9. Defendant Alba is Honest's co-founder and public face of the
Company. Honest's website often contains quotes, videos, and other
communications from Alba to consumers. Defendant Alba is a citizen of
California.
DEFENDANTS' DECEPTIVE AND UNTRUE MARKETING
THAT HONEST'S PRODUCTS ARE FREE OF SLS
10. Since at least 2012, Defendants have spent millions of dollars
marketing Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soap as SLS-
free. Honest's marketing campaign has been continuous, through multiple forms,
and disseminated through all forms of media, including print, television
advertisements and appearances, social media (e.g., Instagram, Twitter, Facebook,
and Pinterest), Honest's website, and multiple third-party websites.
11. In addition to selling through its own website, the Company also sells
its multi-surface cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soap through traditional brick
and mortar stores, such as Target Corp. and Costco Wholesale Corp.
12. Honest states on its website, products, and in various marketing
materials that its products do not contain SLS. In fact, SLS is one of the items
included in Honest's "Honestly FREE Guarantee," which is prominently featured
on Honest's website and packaging. This guarantee states that "While each product
has a unique guarantee, as a company, we keep a master list of ingredients we'll
never consider for use in anything. Period." Honest then provides its master list,
promising that its products are "Honestly Made Without … SLS/SLES."
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 4 of 25
- 4 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
13. Honest also posted an entire article on its blog about the dangers of
SLS. In particular, the article stated:
For many years, SLS was the star surfactant in skincare products,
despite being a known irritant. This is so well-known, in fact, that it's
commonly used in lab testing to intentionally harm skin: Following
application, scientists can compare the effects of untested products
against SLS or test the efficacy of products intended to heal skin.
Widespread concern over the past few years compelled many
companies to look for a gentler alternative. Putting SLS through the
ethoxylation process led to the creation of SLES, a milder surfactant;
it also often produces 1, 4-dioxane, a toxic contaminant and likely
carcinogen. Though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
recommends that companies strip out this nasty chemical, it's not a
requirement. That's likely why independent testing conducted by the
EWG found this contaminant in 46% of products tested.
SLS and SLES are both included in our Honestly Free Guarantee
which means we'll never use them. We've switched over to sodium
coco sulfate (SCS), which is a gentler alternative always derived from
coconut.
Want your home to be Honestly Free of SLS & SLES?
It's as simple as reading your ingredients labels. Avoid anything that
lists the following: SLS, SLES, sodium lauryl sulfate, sodium dodecyl
sulfate, sodium laureth sulfate, or sodium lauryl ether sulfate. (There
are actually even more names for these two ingredients, but the ones
above are most commonly used in the marketplace.)
Be aware: Many brands that claim to be "natural," "green," or "eco-
friendly" still use these ingredients, so read carefully! If it's a
company you love, ask them to use a safer alternative. Together, we
can make it better….
14. Honest specifically claims that its multi-surface cleaner, laundry
detergent, and dish soap are SLS-free. The following webpage pictures of the
Company's multi-surface cleaner show Honest's promise that the multi-surface
cleaner does not contain SLS, including as part of the "Honestly Free Guarantee":
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 5 of 25
- 5 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
15. The Company's laundry detergent webpage shows Honest's promise
that the product does not contain SLS:
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 6 of 25
- 6 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 7 of 25
- 7 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
16. The Company's laundry detergent webpage also prominently displays
the "Honestly Free Guarantee," which states below that the laundry detergent does
not contain SLS:
17. The same is true for the Company's dish soap. The following is a
picture of the dish soap from the Company's website. The picture shows that the
dish soap's label displays the "Honestly Free Guarantee" not to contain SLS:
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 8 of 25
- 8 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
18. As with the laundry detergent, the Company prominently displays on
the dish soap webpage the "Honestly Free Guarantee," which states below that the
dish soap does not contain SLS:
19. Notable, Honest's website and packaging recently underwent a
redesign after The Wall Street Journal began reporting that certain of Honest's
products contain SLS (as explained below). While it now states that its products
are "made without SLS," Honest's website and products used to say its products are
"free" of SLS. That following pictures of Honest's dish soap and laundry
detergent, which Plaintiff purchased, show the previous "free of SLS" language.
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 9 of 25
- 9 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 10 of 25
- 10 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 11 of 25
- 11 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
20. Even Honest's new language in is violation of applicable law.
Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soap list as an
ingredient SCS. SLS, however, is a major component in SCS. As one natural
products website correctly explained:
The process for making sodium coco sulphate is the same as for
sodium lauryl sulfate except now rather than isolate a single fatty acid
from the coconut oil (lauric acid for sodium lauryl sulphate) a broad
cut of saturated fatty acids is used (C12 – C18 saturated fatty acids)
and these are all turned into sulfates. From the typical fatty acid
composition of coconut oil (Table 1) we can see that sodium coco
sulfate would be about 66% sodium lauryl sulfate.
[50/(50+16+8+2)]…. In summary: sodium coco sulfate is largely
SLS, with all the concerns that are linked to that product. Basically it
is just another way to hide SLS in formulations with yet another
name. Both sodium coco sulfate and SLS are synthetic detergents and
should never be part of any natural cleanser. Natural products that are
kind to your skin, and environmentally friendly, will not contain
lauryl sulfate, laureth sulfate, coco sulfate or any of the long list of
other synthetic detergents.1
21. Alan Stone, an environmental chemist at Johns Hopkins University,
also explained that SLS and SCS are the same. In particular, Mr. Stone stated:
The chemical structures of "sodium lauryl sulfate" and "sodium coco
sulfate" are exactly the same…. My guess is that the new name
"sodium coco sulfate" was invented to make it sound "less chemical"
and more friendly, and to imply that it is derived from natural sources
(e.g. coconut oil) instead of synthesized from petroleum feedstock.2
1 Dr. Steve Humphries, Hebe Botanicals Ltd., Consumer Information, Sodium
Coco Sulfate – another synthetic detergent, available at http://www.hebebotanicals
.co.nz/sodium-coco-sulfate-another-synthetic-detergent/.
2 Katherine Ellen Foley, A Chemist Explains Why the Honest Company Toxic
Ingredient Scandal Isn't Really a Scandal, Quartz (Mar. 9, 2016),
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 12 of 25
- 12 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22. On March 10, 2016, The Wall Street Journal published an article,
"Laundry Detergent From Jessica Alba's Honest Co. Contains Ingredient It
Pledged to Avoid." The article revealed that two independent laboratory tests
confirmed the presence of SLS in Honest laundry detergent. One laboratory stated
that Honest's laundry detergent had the same amount of SLS as common laundry
detergent, Tide.
23. Rather than respond truthfully, defendant Alba compounded her false
statements in her reply to The Wall Street Journal article. In a blog post on the
Company's website, Alba stated:
As part of the Honestly Free Guarantee, we chose to use Sodium Coco
Sulfate (SCS) in our laundry detergent because it's a gentler and less
irritating alternative than what's used in many other detergents. Using
SCS in our detergent is just one example of Honest going the extra
mile to create safe and effective products that all of us can feel
confident about using with our families and in our homes.
Accordingly, Alba is attempting to continue the myth that Honest's products do not
contain SLS because they are made from SCS.
24. The Wall Street Journal published a follow up article on March 14,
2016, this time focusing on Earth Friendly Products LLC ("Earth Friendly") and its
connection to Honest. The Wall Street Journal's reporting revealed that Earth
Friendly is the actual manufacturer of Honest's laundry detergent. Earth Friendly
makes its own laundry detergent called "Ecos." Ecos lists the same ingredients as
Honest's laundry detergent. Unlike Honest's laundry detergent, however, Ecos
does not claim to be SLS-free.
25. Earth Friendly had previously claimed that Ecos was SLS-free on its
http://qz.com/642754/a-chemist-explains-why-the-honest-company-toxic-
ingredient-scandal-isnt-really-a-scandal/.
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 13 of 25
- 13 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
website. However, according to The Wall Street Journal, Earth Friendly removed
the SLS-free claim after one of Earth Friendly's rivals complained to the Illinois
Attorney General.
26. The Wall Street Journal also reported on the source of Earth
Friendly's (and therefore Honest's) SCS. Earth Friendly's chemical supplier is
Trichromatic West Inc. ("Trichromatic"). Trichromatic, in turn, imports its SCS
from an India-based manufacturer, Galaxy Surfactant Ltd. ("Galaxy"). Galaxy
labels its SCS as SLS. The Wall Street Journal also reported that a representative
of Galaxy told it that "it is 'industry convention' for SCS to be made from palm
kernel oil or coconut oil, and said SLS is one component of SCS."
27. The Wall Street Journal quoted Dr. Joe Schwarcz, a chemistry
professor at McGill University in Montreal, Quebec, that "[t]he difference
[between SLS and SCS] has no practical significance."
28. The Wall Street Journal also talked to Saskia van Gendt, an
environmental scientist and sustainability manager at Method Products PBC, one
of Honest's main competitors. Ms. van Gendt explained to The Wall Street Journal
that to make SCS, chemical processes are applied to unrefined coconut oil and the
result is a mixture that contains a large amount of SLS, in addition to other
compounds. "The fact is that SCS actually contains SLS," according to Ms. van
Gendt.
29. Accordingly, Defendants' claims that Honest's multi-surface cleaner,
laundry detergent and dish soap are SLS-free because they contain SCS are
misleading, deceptive, and untrue.
30. Plaintiff relied on these representations to her detriment. Plaintiff first
purchased Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soap in June
2014 and has continued to purchase these products since that time. In purchasing
these products, Plaintiff relied on Defendants' statements that they were SLS-free,
including the statements on the packaging of the products. Plaintiff would not
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 14 of 25
- 14 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
have bought the products had she known that they contained SLS.
31. Defendants' use of the "Honest" brand name in connection with the
advertising and sale of these products is also misleading, deceptive, and untrue. In
purchasing Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soap,
Plaintiff also relied to her detriment on the "Honest" brand name on these products,
further mistakenly believing that the Company was being honest and truthful in its
advertising of these products as SLS-free. Had she known that the Company's
advertising was not honest about these products being SLS-free, she would not
have purchased them.
32. Plaintiff will continue to purchase Honest's multi-surface cleaner,
laundry detergent, and dish soup if she can be assured that, so long as these
products are advertised as SLS-free, they in fact honestly are free of SLS.
33. By using false and misleading claims, including the "Honest" brand
name in connection with these products, Defendants were able to command market
prices for Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soap
significantly above fair market price, and above what their prices would have been
absent Defendants' use of the false and misleading statements, including the
"Honest" brand name.
34. Plaintiff also sustained legally cognizable injury in the form of lost
money as a result of Honest's misbranding and deceptive acts.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
35. Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of the following
class pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure:
All United States residents who, from January 1, 2011 to the present,
purchased Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry detergent, or dish
soap products primarily for personal, family, or household use, and
not for resale (the "Class").
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 15 of 25
- 15 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
36. Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, any of Honest's parent
companies, subsidiaries, and/or affiliates, officers, directors, legal representative,
employees, co-conspirators, all governmental entities, and any judge, justice, or
judicial officer presiding over this matter.
37. This action is brought and may be properly maintained as a class
action. This action satisfies the numerously, typicality, adequacy, predominance,
and superiority requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
38. The members in the proposed Class are so numerous that individual
joinder of all members is impracticable, and the disposition of the claims of all
Class members in a single action will provide substantial benefits to the parties and
Court.
39. Questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff and the Class include,
but are not limited to, the following:
(a) whether Honest's multi-surface cleaner contains SLS;
(b) whether Honest's laundry detergent contains SLS;
(c) whether Honest's dish soap contains SLS;
(d) whether SCS contains SLS;
(e) whether Defendants' representations and claims concerning
Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry detergent and dish soap are likely to
mislead, deceive, confuse, or confound consumers acting reasonably;
(f) whether Defendants' use of the "Honest" brand name in
connection with advertising and sale of Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry
detergent, and dish soap is likely to mislead, deceive, confuse, of confound
consumers acting reasonably;
(g) whether Honest's packaging violates applicable California law;
(h) the proper equitable and injunctive relief;
(i) the proper amount of actual or compensatory damages;
(j) the proper amount of restitution or disgorgement;
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 16 of 25
- 16 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(k) the proper amount of punitive damages; and
(l) the proper amount of reasonable litigation expenses and
attorneys' fees.
40. Plaintiff's claims are typical of Class members' claims in that they are
based on the same underlying facts, events, and circumstances relating to
Defendants' conduct.
41. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests
of the Class, has no interests incompatible with the interests of the Class, and has
retained counsel competent and experienced in class action, consumer protection,
and false advertising litigation.
42. Class treatment is superior to other options for resolution of the
controversy because the relief sought for each Class member is small such that,
absent representative litigation, it would be infeasible for Class members to redress
the wrongs done to them.
43. Questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over any
questions affecting only individual Class members.
44. As a result of the foregoing, Class treatment is appropriate.
COUNT I
(Violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
California Civil Code §§1750, Et Seq., Against Defendants)
45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every
allegation contained above, as though fully set forth herein.
46. Plaintiff and each proposed Class member is a "consumer," as that
term is defined in California Civil Code section 1761(d).
47. Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soap are
"goods," as that term is defined in California Civil Code section 1761(a).
48. Defendants are "person[s]" as that term is defined in California Civil
Code section 1761(c).
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 17 of 25
- 17 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
49. Plaintiff and each proposed Class Member's purchase of Honest's
products constituted a "transaction," as that term is defined in California Civil
Code section 1761(e).
50. Defendant's conduct alleged herein violates the following provisions
of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (the "CLRA"):
(a) California Civil Code section 1770(a)(5), by representing that
the SCS products had characteristics, ingredients, uses, and benefits which they do
not have, and further by using the "Honest" brand name in connection with the
SCS products;
(b) California Civil Code section 1770(a)(7), by representing that
the SCS products were of a particular standard, quality, or grade, when they were
of another, including through use of the "Honest" brand name in connection with
the SCS products;
(c) California Civil Code section 1770(a)(9), by advertising
goods with intent not to sell them as advertised; and
(d) California Civil Code section 1770(a)(16), by representing
that the SCS products have been supplied in accordance with previous
representations when they have not.
51. As a direct and proximate result of these violations, Plaintiff and the
Class have been harmed, and that harm will continue unless Defendants are
enjoined from using the "Honest" brand name in any manner in connection with
the advertising and sale of the SCS products, and from representing that the SCS
products are SLS-free.
52. On April 5, 2016, counsel for Plaintiff and the proposed Class
provided Defendants with written notice (via U.S. certified mail, return receipt
requested) that their conduct is in violation of the CLRA. Thus, pursuant to
California Civil Code section 1782, Plaintiff intends to amend this Complaint to
bring a claim for actual damages after the passing of the statutory notice period.
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 18 of 25
- 18 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
53. Plaintiff seeks an award of attorney's fees pursuant to, inter alia,
California Civil Code section 1780(e) and California Code of Civil Procedure
section 1021.5.
COUNT II
(Violation of California False Advertising Law, California Business &
Professions Code §§17500, Et Seq., Against Defendants)
54. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every
allegation contained above, as though fully set forth herein.
55. California's False Advertising Law prohibits any statement in
connection with the sale of goods "which is untrue or misleading." Cal. Bus. &
Prof. Code §17500.
56. As set forth herein, Defendants' claims that Honest's multi-surface
cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soap are free of SLS are literally false and
likely to deceive the public.
57. Defendants' claims that Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry
detergent, and dish soap are SLS-free are untrue or misleading.
58. Defendants' use of the "Honest" brand name for these products is false
and misleading and is likely to deceive or confuse the public.
59. Defendants knew, or reasonably should have known, that these claims
were untrue or misleading.
60. Defendants' conduct is ongoing and continuing, such that prospective
injunctive relief is necessary, especially given Plaintiff's desire to purchase these
products in the future if she can be assured that, so long as the products are
advertised as SLS-free, they truly are free of SLS.
61. Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to injunctive and
equitable relief, and restitution in the amount they spent on Honest's multi-surface
cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soap.
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 19 of 25
- 19 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
COUNT III
(Violations of the Unfair Competition Law, California Business &
Professions Code §§17200, Et Seq., Against Defendants)
62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every
allegation contained above, as though fully set forth herein.
63. The Unfair Competition Law prohibits any "unlawful, unfair or
fraudulent business act or practice." Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200.
Fraudulent
64. Defendants' statements that Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry
detergent, and dish soap are SLS-free, as set forth herein, are literally false and
likely to deceive the public.
65. Defendants' use of the "Honest" brand name for these products is false
and misleading, and likely to deceive the public.
Unlawful
66. As alleged herein, Defendants have advertised Honest's multi-surface
cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soap with false or misleading claims, such that
Defendants' actions as alleged herein violate at least the following laws:
• The CLRA, California Business & Professions Code sections 1750, et
seq.; and
• The False Advertising Law, California Business & Professions Code
sections 17500, et seq.
Unfair
67. Defendants' conduct with respect to the labeling, advertising, and sale
of Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soap is unfair
because Defendants' conduct was immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, or
substantially injurious to consumers and the utility of their conduct, if any, does
not outweigh the gravity of the harm to their victims.
68. Defendants' conduct with respect to the labeling, advertising, and sale
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 20 of 25
- 20 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soap is also unfair
because it violates public policy as declared by specific constitutional, statutory, or
regulatory provisions, including, but not limited to, the False Advertising Law and
the CLRA.
69. Defendants' conduct with respect to the labeling, advertising, and sale
of Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soap is also unfair
because the consumer injury is substantial, not outweighed by benefits to
consumers or competition, and not one consumers themselves can reasonably
avoid.
* * *
70. In accordance with California Business & Professions Code section
17203, Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Defendants from continuing to conduct
business through fraudulent or unlawful acts and practices, including by using the
"Honest" brand name for their SCS products, and to commence a corrective
advertising campaign. Defendants' conduct is ongoing and continuing, such that
prospective injunctive relief is necessary.
71. On behalf of herself and the Class, Plaintiff also seeks an order for the
restitution of all monies from the sale of Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry
detergent, and dish soap, which were unjustly acquired through acts of fraudulent,
unfair, or unlawful competition.
COUNT IV
(Breach of Express Warranty, California Commercial Code
§2313, Against Defendants)
72. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every
allegation contained above, as though fully set forth herein.
73. There was a sale of goods from Defendants to Plaintiff and the Class
members.
74. Defendants made affirmations of fact or promises, including their
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 21 of 25
- 21 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
"Honesty Free Guarantee," that Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry detergent,
and dish soap are SLS-free and SLS is an ingredient that Honest would never use.
These affirmations of fact, promises, and descriptions formed part of the basis of
the bargain. Defendants thus expressly warranted the goods sold.
75. Defendants breached the warranty in that Honest's multi-surface
cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soap contain SLS.
76. Plaintiff and the Class members suffered injury as a result of
Defendants' breach in that they paid money for products that were not what
Defendants represented.
77. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, seeks actual damages for
Defendants' breach of warranty.
COUNT V
(Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. §§2301 et seq.)
78. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and realleges each and every
allegation contained above, as though fully set forth herein.
79. Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soup are
consumer products within the meaning of 15 U.S.C. §2301(1).
80. Plaintiff and Class members are consumers within the meaning of 15
U.S.C. §2301(3).
81. Defendants are suppliers and warrantors as defined by 15 U.S.C.
§2301(4) and (5).
82. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act permits a consumer to recover
damages caused "by the failure of a supplier, warrantor, or service contractor to
comply with any obligation under his [Act], or under a written warranty, implied
warranty, or service contract." 15 U.S.C. §2310(d)(1).
83. Honest's claim, including its "Honesty Free Guarantee," that its SCS
products are SLS-free is a "written warranty" within the meaning of the Act
because it is an "affirmation of fact or written promise made in connection with the
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 22 of 25
- 22 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
sale of" the product, "which relates to the nature of the material ... and affirms or
promises that such material ... is defect free or will meet a specified level of
performance...." 15 U.S.C. §2301(6)(A).
84. As set forth herein, Honest's SLS-free claim, and its use of the
"Honest" brand name for these products, are false, misleading, and likely to
deceive the public. As a result, Defendants have breached their express, written
warranty.
85. Defendants have violated the statutory rights of Plaintiff and the Class
pursuant to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, thereby damaging Plaintiff and the
Class. 15 U.S.C. §§2301, et seq.
86. Plaintiff and the Class have been injured as a direct and proximate
result of Defendants' warranty breach because: (i) they would not have purchased
Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soup at all, or at least
on the same terms, if they had known the products were SLS-free; and (ii) these
products were not sold as promised.
87. Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class, seeks damages, equitable
relief, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§2310(d)(1)-(2).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
88. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, prays for judgment against Defendants as to each and every cause of
action, including:
A. An order declaring this action to be a proper class action,
appointing Plaintiff and her counsel to represent the Class, and requiring
Defendants to bear the costs of class notice;
B. An order enjoining Defendants from selling Honest's multi-
surface cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soap in any manner suggesting or
implying that Honest's multi-surface cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soap are
SLS-free;
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 23 of 25
- 23 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. An order enjoining Defendants from using the "Honest" brand
name in any manner in connection with the advertising and sale of Honest's multi-
surface cleaner, laundry detergent, and dish soup;
D. An order requiring Defendants to engage in a corrective
advertising campaign and engage in any further necessary affirmative injunctive
relief, such as recalling existing products;
E. An order awarding declaratory relief, and any further
retrospective or prospective injunctive relief permitted by law or equity, including
enjoining Defendants from continuing the unlawful practices alleged herein, and
injunctive relief to remedy Defendants' past conduct;
F. An order requiring Defendants to pay restitution to restore all
funds acquired by means of any act or practice declared by this Court to be an
unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business act or practice, untrue or misleading
advertising, or a violation of the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law,
CLRA, or Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, plus pre-and post-judgment interest
thereon;
G. An order requiring Defendants to disgorge or return all monies,
revenues, and profits obtained by means of any wrongful or unlawful act or
practice;
H. An order requiring Defendants to pay all actual and statutory
damages permitted under the causes of action alleged herein;
I. An order requiring Defendants to pay punitive damages on any
cause of action so allowable;
J. An order awarding attorneys' fees and costs to Plaintiff and the
Class; and
K. An order providing for all other such equitable relief as may be
just and proper.
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 24 of 25
- 24 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated: April 5, 2016 ROBBINS ARROYO LLP BRIAN J. ROBBINS KEVIN A. SEELY ASHLEY R. RIFKIND LEONID KANDINOV /s/Brian J. Robbins
BRIAN J. ROBBINS
600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 525-3990 Facsimile: (619) 525-3991 E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
kseely@robbinsarroyo.com arifkind@robbinsarroyo.com lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com
LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC JACK FITZGERALD Hillcrest Professional Building 3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 692-3840 Facsimile: (619) 362-9555 E-mail: jack@jcakfitzgeraldlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff
1088355
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 25 of 25
I. (a) PLAINTIFFS Amy Glover, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff San Diego County, CA (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
(C) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Robbins Arroyo LLP 600 B Street, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 525-3990
DEFENDANTS The Honest Company, Inc. and Jessica Warren a/k/a Jessica Alba
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant Los Angeles County, CA (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
Attorneys (If Known)
II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X" in One Box Only)
0 1 U.S. Government 0 3 Federal Question Plaintiff (US. Government Not a Party)
0 2 U.S. Government 11 4 Diversity Defendant
(Indicate Citizenship ofParties in Item HI)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an 'X" in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant)
PTF DEF PTF DEF Citizen of This State CIC 1 0 I Incorporated or Principal Place 0 4 IR 4
of Business In This State
Citizen of Another State 0 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 0 5 0 5 of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a 0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation Foreign Country
06 0 6
JS 44 (Rev. 12/12) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM)
IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an "X" in One Box Only) CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES I
0 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 0 625 Drug Related Seizure 0 422. Appeal 28 USC 158 0 375 False Claims Act 0 120 Marine 0 310 Airplane 0 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC 881 0 423 Withdrawal 0 400 State Reapportionment 0 130 Miller Act 0 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 0 690 Other 28 USC 157 0 410 Antitrust 0 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 0 367 Health Care/ 0 430 Banks and Banking 0 150 Recovery of Overpayment 0 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 0 450 Commerce
& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 0 820 Copyrights 0 460 Deportation 0 151 Medicare Act 0 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability 0 830 Patent 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and 0 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 0 368 Asbestos Personal 0 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations
Student Loans 0 340 Marine Injury Product 0 480 Consumer Credit (Excludes Veterans) 0 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 0 490 Cable/Sat TV
0 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 0 710 Fair Labor Standards 0 861 HIA (1395ff) 0 850 Securities/Commodities/ of Veteran's Benefits 0 350 Motor Vehicle 0 370 Other Fraud Act 0 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange
0 160 Stockholders' Suits 0 355 Motor Vehicle 0 371 Truth in Lending 0 720 Labor/Management 0 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 0 890 Other Statutory Actions 0 190 Other Contract Product Liability 0 380 Other Personal Relations 0 864 SSID Title XVI 0 891 Agricultural Acts 0 195 Contract Product Liability M 360 Other Personal Property Damage 0 740 Railway Labor Act 0 865 RSI (405(g)) 0 893 Environmental Matters 0 196 Franchise Injury 0 385 Property Damage 0 751 Family and Medical 0 895 Freedom of Information
0 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability Leave Act Act Medical Malpractice 0 790 Other Labor Litigation 0 896 Arbitration
I REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 0 791 Employee Retirement FEDERAL TAX SUITS 0 899 Administrative Procedure 0 210 Land Condemnation 0 440.0ther Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: . Income Security Act 0 870 Taxes (U.S.-Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of 0 220 Foreclosure 0 441 Voting 0 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) Agency Decision 0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 0 442 Employment 0 510 Motions to Vacate 0 871 IRS—Third Party 0 950 Constitutionality of 0 240 Torts to Land 0 443 Housing/ Sentence 26 USC 7609 State Statutes 0 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 0 530 General 0 290 All Other Real Property 0 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION
Employment Other: 0 462 Naturalization Application 0 446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 0 540 Mandamus & Other 0 465 Other Immigration
Other 0 550 Civil Rights Actions 0 448 Education 0 555 Prison Condition
0 560 Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" is One Box Only)
)81 1 Original 0 2 Removed from Proceeding
State Court 0 3 Remanded from
Appellate Court
0 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from 0 6 Multidistrict Reopened Another District Litigation
(speci,b,)
VII. REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF ANY (See instructions):
VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. §1332 Brief description of cause: Violations of Cal. CLRA, Cal. UCL, and Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act; and Breach of Express Warranty
CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND: A Yes 0 No UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
JUDGE
DOCKET NUMBER
DATE
SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
04/05/2016
s/Brian J. Robbins FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAO. JUDGE
'16CV0812 NLSW
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1-1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 2
JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12)
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44
Authority For Civil Cover Sheet
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows:
I.(a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title.
(b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the "defendant" is the location of the tract of land involved.)
(c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section "(see attachment)".
Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.Cv.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis ofjurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an "X" in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.)
Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party.
IV. Nature of Suit. Place an "X" in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive.
V. Origin. Place an "X" in one of the six boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Remanded from Appellate Court. (3) Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above.
VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service
VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an "X" in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded.
VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases.
Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.
Case 3:16-cv-00812-W-NLS Document 1-1 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 2
Recommended