A newly filed class action lawsuit accuses Mielle Organics LLC and its parent company, The Procter & Gamble Company (P&G), of misrepresenting the safety of their Rosemary Mint Scalp & Strengthening Hair Oil. The complaint, filed by plaintiff Georgina Gomes in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that the product may cause hair loss and that the companies failed to disclose this risk to consumers.
Nature of the lawsuit
The lawsuit claims that the defendants marketed the product as safe and effective for its intended use without adequately warning consumers of the potential risks. According to the complaint, “Defendants misrepresent that the Product [is] safe” and “failed to disclose that the Product may cause hair loss in its users.”
The complaint further alleges that P&G, which acquired Mielle in 2023, continued to distribute and market the hair oil without proper testing. “Defendants made no reasonable effort to test [the] Product to ensure that the Product would not cause hair loss,” the complaint stated and further claimed that consumers would not have purchased the product or would have paid less had they been made aware of the risk.
The plaintiff argued that the companies had a duty to disclose material facts to consumers, stating: “Defendants knowingly, or at least negligently, introduced a harmful and/or misbranded Product into the US market.”
Allegations of fraud and misrepresentation
The lawsuit outlined several causes of action, including fraud, unjust enrichment, and violations of state consumer fraud laws. It claimed that Mielle and P&G made both express and implied warranties regarding the product’s safety, which were misleading.
“Defendants represented and warranted, expressly and impliedly, that the Product was safe and effective for [its] intended use, [and] were of merchantable quality,” the complaint read. However, the plaintiff claimed that this was not the case and that consumers were deprived of the benefit of their bargain.
According to the lawsuit, the product’s labeling, advertising, and marketing materials did not mention any risk of hair loss, leading consumers to believe the product was safe.
The plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages, restitution, and injunctive relief, claiming that the product is effectively “worthless” due to its alleged risks.
Plaintiff’s claims on product risks
While the plaintiff alleged that the product caused her hair loss, the complaint emphasized that her primary grievance was the lack of transparency regarding potential risks.
“Plaintiff would not have purchased Defendants’ Product at all had she known the Product contained ingredients causing hair loss or risked causing hair loss,” the complaint stated. It also noted that “no reasonable consumer would have paid any amount for a cosmetic product that contained ingredients causing hair loss or containing a high risk of causing hair loss.”
Notably, the lawsuit does not allege that the product is inherently defective. Instead, it claimed that the companies’ failure to disclose the risks misled consumers into purchasing the product under false pretenses.
Industry expert commentary
Legal experts see the Gomes lawsuit as part of a broader trend in the personal care industry. Kelly Bonner, an associate attorney at Duane Morris LLP, said that class action lawsuits against personal care companies have been on the rise in recent years.
“I think this case is part of a much broader trend we’ve seen over the past 2-3 years, in which plaintiffs have brought consumer fraud allegations on a class action basis against personal care product companies for alleged misrepresentations that the products are safe, clean, or non-toxic, or failing to disclose that the product contains certain contaminants or is linked to human health issues,” Bonner said.
She also pointed out a significant aspect of the Gomes case: “Here, plaintiff is alleging that the defendants made fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions that their products were safe for their intended use and not harmful, and failed to disclose an alleged risk of hair loss.” She explained that “notably, Plaintiff doesn’t allege that the products are defective, or caused her hair loss.”
Rather, she continued, “Plaintiff is alleging that had she known that the product had a risk of hair loss, she wouldn’t have purchased the product.”
Bonner cautioned that this case highlights the growing litigation risks for personal care companies. “These cases illustrate the increased litigation risk that companies face from dissatisfied consumers,” she said.
“Again, it’s not clear here whether the product actually caused Plaintiff’s hair loss – there are numerous reasons why a person might experience hair loss. But companies should be aware of the risks posed by marketing claims that may be perceived as incomplete or misleading," she stated.
What the complaint seeks
The lawsuit seeks to certify a class of consumers who purchased Mielle’s Rosemary Mint Scalp & Strengthening Hair Oil. The proposed class includes consumers across several states who bought the product within the relevant statute of limitations period.
The plaintiff is seeking both monetary damages and injunctive relief.
Specifically, the complaint requests:
- Full refunds for consumers who purchased the product,
- Damages for the alleged harm caused by misleading marketing, and
- Injunctive relief to prevent further sales of the product without appropriate risk disclosures.
The complaint also seeks punitive damages, arguing that the defendants acted with “willful and malicious conduct.”
Potential industry implications
The Gomes case highlights the growing scrutiny of marketing claims made by cosmetics and personal care brands. Lawsuits alleging that companies failed to disclose potential health risks have become increasingly common, particularly in claims of products being “clean” or “safe.”
Bonner emphasized that companies need to consider the language they use in product marketing carefully. “There’s an increased focus on transparency and accountability in the personal care industry,” she said. “Manufacturers must ensure that they are not making claims that could be considered misleading or incomplete.”
The case is Gomes v. Mielle Organics LLC and The Procter & Gamble Company, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
CosmeticsDesign reached out to Mielle Organics for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
CosmeticsDesign reached out to P&G for comment but did not receive a response by the time of publication.
