Consumer demand for “clean” and additive-free products has grown substantially in recent years, particularly in the beauty sector. The global market for natural and organic beauty products was projected to reach $22 billion by 2024, driven in part by younger generations that increasingly prioritize “clean” formulations over other product attributes. As markets expand, so does the litigation risk for brands that make “clean” claims without adequate substantiation.
“Clean” Claims and the False Advertising Landscape
Litigators, marketers, and courts are well acquainted with “natural” claims in false advertising litigation. Express or implied “natural” claims have long been scrutinized when products contain synthetic or chemical ingredients, and “clean” claims are similarly contested. Brands must now confront what consumers actually understand “clean” to mean.
Finster v. Sephora: A Case Study in “Clean” Claim Liability
A federal lawsuit filed in the Northern District of New York clearly illustrates the stakes. In Finster v. Sephora USA Inc., plaintiff Lindsey Finster and a class of consumers brought a false advertising suit against Sephora, alleging that products sold under its “Clean at Sephora” program contained synthetic ingredients and allegedly harmful additives that consumers would not consider “clean.”
The plaintiffs alleged that they purchased these products believing that they were free of harmful or synthetic substances, which formed the basis for claims of false advertising, unjust enrichment, fraud, and related causes of action.
Sephora moved to dismiss, arguing that consumers had misunderstood “clean” to mean “natural,” and that its marketing clearly disclosed what “Clean at Sephora” meant: products formulated without parabens, sulfates, Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, Sodium Laureth Sulfate, phthalates, mineral oils, formaldehyde, and more. This is a narrower definition than “natural,” which implies that a product should “contain only natural ingredients.”
Consumer Perception Is Central to a “Clean” Claim
Even where a brand discloses and defines the term “clean,” a claim may still arise if consumers perceive the term differently, or if ingredients in the product are found to be irritants or harmful. Advertising claim substantiation surveys can resolve these disputes before they erupt by measuring what consumers understand disputed terms like “clean” to mean in the context of a specific product or campaign, including how marketing is perceived as a whole.
When questions arise about consumer understanding and preferences, IMS Legal Strategies provides consumer research and advertising claim substantiation surveys to support both compliance and litigation defense.
Contact our team to discuss your advertising claim substantiation needs.
