The cosmetics and personal care sector continues to face legal pressure over product labeling tied to topical collagen product claims. As previously reported by CosmeticsDesign US in October 2024, a wave of class actions has put terms like “vegan collagen” under the microscope, particularly when they suggest parity with animal-derived collagen.
“No court has held that the phrase ‘vegan collagen’ is inherently misleading,” Shawn Collins, partner at Stradling Law, told CosmeticsDesign US. “But brands need to be careful not to suggest that their vegan collagen performs the same as naturally occurring collagen unless they can substantiate that.”
Recent decisions from the Southern District of New York have shaped how these cases are being evaluated, but they have not created definitive safe harbors. Collins pointed to Nguyen v. Algenist LLC as one example where a court dismissed claims outright.
“The Court held that the ‘Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that vegan collagen is necessarily ineffective, alone or in the context of the Products’ formulas,’” he explained. “That case was dismissed without leave to amend, which is significant.”
However, the Nguyen ruling does not insulate all marketing using the term. In contrast, in Lopez v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., the court found it plausible that a consumer could interpret “COLLAGEN MOISTURE FILLER” as implying equivalence to animal collagen.
“That case moved forward specifically because the product’s labeling and presentation suggested similar benefits to real collagen,” Collins said. “That’s where the risk lies, implying equivalency without the science.”
Contextual interpretation still lacking in judicial decisions
Collins noted that recent comparisons have been drawn between “vegan collagen” and terms like “almond milk” or “vegan burger,” which are phrases that have, in other contexts, been upheld by courts due to consumer understanding. However, he remained skeptical that this argument has gained traction in cosmetics litigation.
“No court has embraced this contextual, common-sense interpretation yet, at least not in a published opinion,” he explained. “But it’s an argument I’ll continue to raise because it highlights the fallacy in assuming the term alone is misleading.”
Until such reasoning is codified in precedent, he advised industry stakeholders to take a conservative approach to claims that may be interpreted as health or performance-based.
Substantiation and disclaimers: Current best practices
As Collins explained, the legal burden remains with the manufacturer to provide clarity and substantiation, particularly in claims tied to collagen efficacy, anti-aging benefits, or skin performance.
“The biggest lesson is that brands should not be using wording, pictures, or any graphics in connection with ‘vegan collagen’ that suggests or implies it is as effective as real collagen, unless they have the science and data to back that up,” he said.
In practical terms, this means modifying both the label and promotional content to reflect limitations or clarify broader formulations.
“Brands just need to make sure they’re giving consumers the full picture,” he clarified. “If only certain ingredients are natural, say that, [and] if the product uses vegan collagen as one part of a larger formulation, say that too.”
He further recommended the use of asterisked clarifiers as an effective mechanism for managing these nuances, particularly with “terms like ‘vegan collagen’ or ‘all natural’ when there’s more context,” which can better communicate messaging to the consumer. He cited the issues seen in Gunaratna v. Dennis Gross, where the claim itself wasn’t found to be misleading, but the lack of detail and transparency created legal vulnerability, as an example where this strategy could be effective.
Expanding legal exposure beyond collagen
Litigation is not limited to collagen-related terms, he added. As consumer demand continues to grow around “clean,” “plant-based,” and “non-toxic” beauty, so does the potential attention from plaintiffs’ attorneys.
“I’ve seen an increased amount of litigation over the past year related to terms like ‘plant-based,’ ‘clean,’ ‘gentle and nourishing,’ ‘soothing,’ and ‘worry-free,’” Collins said. “And I expect this trend to continue.”
He noted that these phrases often carry implied performance or safety claims that, without substantiation or context, can violate consumer protection standards.
“Plaintiffs’ attorneys see these terms as profit drivers,” he added. “And they’re targeting the companies profiting most.”
Strategic clarity now can mitigate later litigation risks
For brands and suppliers navigating evolving consumer expectations and ESG-aligned marketing, the priority is to ensure product claims are both factually accurate and legally durable, he concluded.
“At the end of the day, it’s not about avoiding terms like ‘vegan collagen,’” said Collins. “It’s about making sure that when you use them, you’re telling the whole truth.”
