Retailers’ Clean Beauty Claims Fuel Consumer Doubts and Lawsuits

In the beauty world, a “clean” product brings to mind one or more of the following features: sustainable, nontoxic, ethically made, cruelty-free, or even vegan.

Such broad associations speak to the appeal of “clean beauty” products: They can make consumers—especially climate-conscious Gen Z and millennials—feel like they’re making the better choice for themselves and the planet. The “clean beauty” market, which is forecast to expand to $15.3 billion by 2028, has grown from its roots in luxury and independent brands to take over shelves of products at mass-market retailers like Target.

But companies’ self-imposed definitions of what they consider to be “clean” has led to doubts about industry claims, fueling consumer-led class actions and raising the legal risk for companies trying to capitalize on product demand. While regulators are eyeing potentially misleading environmental advertising—and some beauty brands are even hoping they’ll clarify what’s “clean"—it’s the courts that will likely be the first to decide when use of the trendy term crosses into a type of greenwashing.

A consumer lawsuit against Sephora alleges that the ingredients in its “clean” products don’t match up with consumer expectations, while another suit against Target alleges that some of the retailers’ “clean” products contain potentially toxic chemicals that it says are banned from the line. Both retailers prominently display green icons promoting their “clean” lines on shelves of products like lip gloss, mascara, and moisturizer.

“You’re going to see a lot more of these lawsuits,” said Shawn Collins, an attorney at Stradling who advises companies on consumer litigation and enforcement from regulators like the Federal Trade Commission. “You can put ‘clean’ and ‘natural’ prominently in big, bold font underneath the product name, but if you do, understand that there will be scrutiny from regulators and plaintiffs attorneys potentially asking you to prove and substantiate that.”

‘Clean’ in Court

The plaintiffs in the Sephora and Target lawsuits both take aim at the retailers’ “clean” marketing, intending to scour the products for purportedly harmful ingredients.

Sephora faced the first “clean beauty” lawsuit explicitly focused on the term late last year in the US District Court for the Northern District of New York. That proposed class action argues that products Sephora says are “clean” contain ingredients that are inconsistent with how consumers understand the term.

“Oftentimes there’s a disconnect between what the public understands as ‘clean’” and the companies’ own standard, said Spencer Sheehan, a class action lawyer who represents the plaintiff, Lindsey Finster. Sheehan—a thorn in the side of companies on the receiving end of consumer complaints—has spearheaded hundreds of class actions over allegedly misleading labeling, such as lawsuits accusing companies of misrepresenting their vanilla-flavored products.

“It’s important that consumers are respected and that companies are careful that they not go too far with their voluntary claims about their products’ attributes,” Sheehan said in an interview.

Sephora argued in court documents that Finster “seeks to conjure up from Sephora’s representation about what is excluded” from the products “supposed promises about what is included.”

Target’s “clean beauty” products tout the absence of ingredients like parabens, propylparabens or phthalates, which are alleged to increase the risk of cancer, hormonal imbalances and harm to reproductive organs.

But the lawsuit, filed in August in the US District Court for the District of Minnesota, said some “Target Clean” products contain ingredients that should exclude it from the line, such as a bronzer that allegedly contains propylparabens. The suit also said the marketing is misleading because the products are presented as “clean” even though they contain other allegedly harmful ingredients.

Some of the products the retailer promotes as “Target Clean” don’t actually purport to be “clean” themselves on their own packaging or promotional information, the lawsuit said. (Both Target and Sephora did not respond to a request for comment for this story.)

Target said in a motion to dismiss that consumers “have no reasonable basis to believe” that the “Target Clean” program means that the products are made without other ingredients that the plaintiffs say might be harmful. Target also said the lawsuit doesn’t explain how the ‘Target Clean’ program made any environmental claims.

Paying a Premium

The “clean beauty” lawsuits follow a swell of greenwashing litigation in recent years, like the ones over claims that products are “100% recyclable,” as well as the wave of lawsuits about harmful chemicals in consumer products like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS or forever chemicals.

While many similar cases haven’t yet been resolved, attorneys are paying close attention to how courts have ruled in lawsuits with arguments similar to those used over “clean beauty.” For example, the US District Court for the Southern District of New York in September threw out a proposed class action where consumers said that they were misled into paying a premium price for L’Oréal’s waterproof mascaras, which the company had advertised as “safe” but the plaintiffs alleged contained PFAS.

In that ruling, the judge agreed with L’Oréal’s argument that the plaintiffs failed to prove they had suffered any real injury because they didn’t sufficiently prove that the mascaras they bought actually contained PFAS.

It’s common for proposed class actions similar to the “clean beauty” cases to get thrown out, but successful efforts can mean big settlements. In those cases, it often makes sense for companies to settle with consumers simply to avoid further headaches like taking it to trial.

Competing for Consumers

The class actions come as “clean beauty” has increasingly captured the attention—and wallets—of Gen Z and millennial users on social media platforms like TikTok. One video posted by actress Ashley Tisdale with “#cleanbeauty swaps” has over 35,000 likes on the platform. Mass-market retailer Walmart and makeup giant Ulta also have “clean beauty” lines, although they have not been sued over their “clean” marketing like Sephora and Target have.

While “clean beauty” advertising began to dominate the industry several years ago, it’s a powerful marketing force that’s been used in campaigns for decades because of its connotations of purity and even morality, said Denise Sutton, an associate professor at the New York City College of Technology-CUNY who teaches business history and marketing with a focus on beauty and fashion. “It’s really a loaded word,” she said.

Until the courts or regulators arrive at a clear definition of “clean,” some companies are taking the initiative in telling their consumers in detail what “clean” means to them.

Goop, founded and run by Gwyneth Paltrow, published a lengthy blog post last year that said “clean” means a product is free of ingredients linked to “harmful health effects, which can range from hormone disruption and cancer to plain old skin irritation, as well as ecological impacts.” Stella McCartney told Elle magazine last year that she thinks “‘clean’ skin care is all a load of bollocks” and would never use the term, instead calling her products “skin care with a clear conscience.”

Despite the potential legal risks of carrying a “clean beauty” line, brands will continue to tout these products because they know that it means big business. A McKinsey/NielsenIQ study published in February showed that in two-thirds of product categories, including hair care and cosmetics, products that made ESG-related claims grew faster than those that didn’t.

And so businesses are trying to find a balance between staying competitive in this space and warding off legal risks.

“Companies are competing for consumers, and the more they compete, the more willing they are to fudge the boundaries of what is permissible,” said Collins, the Stradling lawyer.

Collins said he advises companies to be mindful of where on the bottle they put claims like “clean,” how big the font is, and if they need to put an asterisk next to an ingredient to explain any caveats. This matters because the placement and font size could make the language material for the purposes of a lawsuit if it’s considered “the most important” element of a product that persuaded a customer to buy it, Collins said.

Businesses are also making sure their marketing and advertising teams understand the litigation risk, and many periodically review the language used to describe new products as they launch, said Tanya Nesbitt, a Thompson Hine partner who focuses on environmental law and greenwashing risks. Then brands need to make sure that language is used uniformly across stores, on their websites, and on social media.

“I’m seeing companies put a lot of money into the front end of this,” Nesbitt said.

It’s important to “stick with plain language” and include disclaimers if you need to clarify what a loose term like “earth-friendly” or “sustainable” actually means for your product, said Nesbitt. “Are you using it in a way that I can necessarily understand? You can ask people what ‘sustainable’ means and you would get several different answers,” she said.

Regulatory Vacuum

Some in the beauty industry, concerned about potentially fraying consumer confidence, are looking to regulators like the Federal Trade Commission in the hope that it might clear the muddy waters of “clean beauty.”

Further guidance on the term “clean” would shore up consumer trust and make it easier for businesses to know how best to avoid class actions, said Akemi Ooka, head of global supply chain resources at the Independent Beauty Association, whose members include Jessica Alba’s Honest Beauty and Burt’s Bees.

The term “clean” creates an issue for the entire industry because it gives the impression that companies are making inferior products if they don’t use the same promotional language, Ooka said, highlighting that “the opposite of ‘clean’ is ‘dirty.’ ”

Environmental activists would welcome clarity from regulators as well. “Regulators need to step up and make sure consumers are protected,” said Lakendra Barajas, senior associate attorney at Earthjustice. “And one way to do that is to define what these terms mean.”

The Independent Beauty Association submitted a comment letter to the FTC in April asking the regulator to issue more guidance on what “clean” really means (among other terms) in its Green Guides, which shape how far companies can go in portraying themselves and their products as environmentally friendly. The FTC is currently in the process of updating the Green Guides for the first time in over a decade, but it has not indicated whether “clean beauty” is on its agenda. (The FTC declined to comment for this piece.)

The Target “clean beauty” suit references the FTC’s Green Guides, including where the FTC says it’s deceptive to misrepresent “directly or by implication” that a product doesn’t contain or is free from a substance. The FTC also says it can be deceptive to say a product is “nontoxic” and “eco-safe.”

While the Green Guides themselves aren’t enforceable, the FTC can bring enforcement actions against misleading marketing. In 2019, for example, Truly Organic paid $1.76 million to settle an FTC complaint over claims that its products are 100% organic. In the beauty and personal care industries, the FTC in 2016 barred four businesses that market skin care, shampoos, and sunscreens, including Utah-based brand Beyond Coastal, from making claims about “all natural” or “100% natural” products. At the time, the FTC alleged that the companies made false claims because the products contained synthetic ingredients.

Still, the risk of regulatory enforcement for “clean” claims is fairly low, and it’s unlikely that the FTC will home in on the term for now, said Kelly Bonner, an attorney at Duane Morris who advises companies on consumer litigation and enforcement risks, including those in the beauty industry.

“I don’t think the FTC is going to focus so much on ideas of ‘clean’ or ‘natural’ given that it hasn’t defined these terms and it’s still unclear as to what these mean,” she said. “It’s more likely that it will get worked out in consumer protection suits and the courts.”

“Smoke and Mirrors”

Some consumers, like Karlique Ceasar, a 24-year-old who majors in the business and technology of fashion at the City University of New York (one of Sutton’s students), were taken aback when they found out there aren’t any regulations on companies marketing beauty or skincare products as “clean.”

“Every time I see a brand and it’s ‘natural’ or ‘clean,’ I do want to do a little more research,” Ceasar said. While he gravitates toward hair products that are better for the environment and don’t have excessive chemicals, he said he’s also aware that some environmentally friendly marketing can be “smoke and mirrors.”

To help consumers peel back the marketing veils now, organizations like the Environmental Working Group have taken measures into their own hands. The nonprofit researches and rates ingredients lists to help consumers better understand what’s actually in a range of products from sunscreens to serums.

But ultimately, the mounting disquiet some consumers feel about “clean beauty” isn’t going away—and that could cost companies in the long run.

Homer Swei, senior vice president of healthy living science at EWG, said it’s better for consumers in the long run that businesses preoccupied with “clean beauty” now think about their ingredients with a new lens.

But the term “clean” “is still a little bit loose and a little bit vague,” Swei said, and inadvertently the industry may lose the confidence of consumers rather than gain it.