The complaint, filed in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey in December, names Kenvue Brands LLC d/b/a Johnson & Johnson as the defendant.
The plaintiff alleges that the product’s branding and presentation create the impression that shea butter and cocoa butter are primary components, when mineral oil is the dominant ingredient.
The case reflects growing industry concerns, as stakeholders face continued litigation scrutiny regarding ingredient-forward branding and so-called “net impression” claims.
What are the allegations?
According to the complaint, the defendant “formulates, manufactures, advertises and sells a product called ‘shea & cocoa butter oil’” throughout the United States. The front label prominently states ‘shea & cocoa butter oil,’ as shown in the complaint filing.
The plaintiff alleges that the labeling represents the product as oil derived from shea butter and cocoa butter. However, the complaint states that “in reality the Product contains trace amounts – less than one percent – of shea butter and cocoa butter”.
The ingredient list reproduced in the complaint shows mineral oil listed first, followed by fragrance, then shea butter, and cocoa butter. The plaintiff claims that because fragrance is present at less than 1%, the named butters must also be present at less than 1%.
The lawsuit asserts claims including violations of state consumer protection law, breach of express and implied warranty and unjust enrichment.
Why ingredient emphasis is drawing litigation
While the case focuses on a single product, legal observers say it reflects a more pervasive trend in labeling-related class actions.
“The plaintiff in this lawsuit alleges that a finished consumer product was marketed in a way that led reasonable consumers to believe that featured ingredients—here, shea butter and cocoa butter—were central to the product’s formulation, when in fact the product was predominantly composed of a different base ingredient,” said Erik Sardina, partner at Kaufman Dolowich, speaking to CosmeticsDesign.
He noted that the claims do not allege the ingredient list is inaccurate.
“According to the plaintiff, the product name, front-label claims, and overall presentation conveyed a misleading impression about ingredient composition, notwithstanding the accuracy of the ingredient list,” he said.
For manufacturers, the distinction matters. As Sardina explained, regulatory compliance with INCI labeling requirements does not necessarily insulate a brand from claims arising from the overall marketing message.
“Consumer expectations are shaped by context, not chemistry,” he continued, and “when an ingredient appears in the product name, consumers are likely to assume it is a meaningful component of the formula.”
He added that plaintiffs increasingly focus on how branding communicates relative importance. “Marketing should therefore be evaluated through a consumer-perception lens, not a regulatory-checklist lens,” he said.
From technical compliance to ‘net impression’
The complaint references federal misbranding provisions under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which prohibit labeling that is “false or misleading in any particular”.
In recent years, plaintiffs have frequently framed their arguments around “net impression,” meaning how a reasonable consumer would interpret the label as a whole, and “for finished-product manufacturers, the case highlights the growing litigation risk tied to how products are named, branded, and positioned on the front label, not just what appears in the ingredient statement,” Sardina said.
He noted that such cases may proceed even in the absence of any safety-related allegations.
“In short, the decision-making lens for manufacturers is shifting from ‘Is the label accurate?’ to ‘Does the label create the right impression?’” Sardina said.
Business risks outside the courtroom
As a proposed class action, the case seeks refunds and damages on behalf of a defined group of consumers.
“For manufacturers defending against class-action fraud claims, the manufacturer has to consider a myriad of costs associated with the claim,” Sardina said.
“In the context of the case alone, there are attorney’s fees and costs just to defend the brand in the immediate lawsuit, as well as PR costs to address and respond to media, stakeholders, and brand fans,” he added.
He also noted that damages in labeling cases often focus on alleged price premiums, meaning the additional amount consumers claim they paid because of the highlighted ingredients.
“Litigation can lead to label and formula changes which carry substantial costs and roll out efforts,” Sardina said.
Pragmatic aspects for brands
For product development and marketing teams, the issues raised in the complaint underline the importance of cross-functional review.
“Alignment is the best risk-management strategy,” Sardina said. “Cases like this one show that labeling-related class actions are less about whether a product is unsafe or mislabeled in a technical sense and more about expectation management.”
He said ingredient-forward naming should not be treated as a purely creative decision.
“Finished-product manufacturers should treat product naming and front-label design as litigation-sensitive decisions, requiring coordinated review among R&D, marketing, and legal teams before products go to market or remain there unchanged,” Sardina explained.
He added that brands should evaluate whether a featured ingredient plays a meaningful role in the formulation.
“If a ‘hero’ ingredient is present at de minimis levels, reconsider whether it should be featured at all,” Sardina said.
The case remains pending.
CosmeticsDesign reached out to Kenvue for comment, but has not received a response at the time of publication.
