Health Law Daily Wrap Up, LABELING AND PACKAGING (FOOD, DRUGS & MEDICAL DEVICES)—N.D. Cal.: Claims against Procter & Gamble over retinol products are dismissed without prejudice, (Feb 3, 2026)

By Steven Melendez

A federal judge said the complaint may be amended to show how use of “retinol” in product labeling is misleading.

A federal judge dismissed without prejudice a putative consumer class action against The Procter & Gamble Company over claims the company misled buyers with products “prominently labeled to include ‘retinol,’” which the consumers say is washed off before it has any “meaningful interaction with the skin.” The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the retinol products and method of injury—lack of benefits from rinsed-off retinol—are similar to the situation with products that were purchased. The court noted the company can raise the issue again at class certification (Kobus v. The Proctor & Gamble Co., 25-cv-00770-HSG (N.D. Cal. Jan. 1, 2026)).

Background. A set of consumers filed a putative class action against Procter & Gamble in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in January 2025, alleging that five of the company’s products are labeled to include retinol, implying “the commonly understood dermatologic benefits of retinol” despite the fact that it is washed off during use before it can take effect.

They argued this constitutes violations of multiple state consumer protection laws and unjust enrichment, seeking to represent a nationwide class. Procter & Gamble argued they lack standing; that the California federal court lacks jurisdiction over named plaintiffs from New York, Florida, and Illinois; and that they have not plausibly pleaded their claims.

Standing. Procter & Gamble argued the consumers do not have standing to seek injunctive relief because they have not plausibly alleged future industry. The consumers conceded that point, and the court granted Procter & Gamble’s motion to dismiss with regard to injunctive relief.

The company also argued the consumers lack standing with regard to three products—Retinol

Rinse-Off Conditioner, Retinol Exfoliating Cleanser, and Retinol Cleansing Melts—that named plaintiffs didn’t allege they bought. But courts have found standing for substantially similar products in such cases where they are physically similar to those consumers bought, the differences are immaterial because the injury and legal claims are the same, and both the products and legal claims are similar, according to the ruling.

The court therefore denied the motion to dismiss on that basis, finding that the retinol products and method of injury—lack of benefits from rinsed-off retinol—are similar to the situation with products that were purchased. The court noted the company can raise the issue again at class certification.

Procter & Gamble also argued for lack of standing to sue under consumer protection laws in states consumers did not reside, did not purchase the products, and were not injured. The court agreed that they do not have the right to bring individual claims in such states, granting the motion to dismiss to that extent, but cited precedent holding that Procter & Gamble would have to show how other states’ consumer protection laws are dissimilar, denied the motion with regard to class claims.

The company also argued that Massachusetts and Texas consumer protection laws require advance notice before a suit is brought. Based on relevant precedents, the court abated the case until 60 days after notice is served in Texas—or the consumers amend their complaint to drop Texas claims—and dismissed without prejudice the Massachusetts claims since notice wasn’t given before filing.

Personal jurisdiction. Procter & Gamble also argued the court lacks personal jurisdiction over three named consumers who bought its products outside of California and did not claim injury from the company’ actions in California. The consumers argued the court should exercise “pendent party jurisdiction” over those three people, but the court declined to so, citing a body of precedent holding that “pendent party jurisdiction cannot be exercised by a federal court sitting in diversity,” dismissing those three people’s individual claims and corresponding counts.

Failure to adequately plead. Procter & Gamble also argued the consumers failed to adequately allege any actual misrepresentations or omissions by the company. They had argued that the products’ labels accurately say that they contain retinol but that this is misleading since the substance will rinse off before it conveys any actual skin benefit.

California law does prohibit advertising which “although true, is either actually misleading or which has a capacity, likelihood or tendency to deceive or confuse the public,” according to the ruling. And the consumers say retinol is widely understood by the public to have anti-aging properties but that according to terms in product names like “Retinol Body Wash” and “Retinol Rinse-Off Conditioner” and the product use directions, the products are intended to be rinsed off.

But the consumers did not make clear how Procter & Gamble “implied certain benefits from retinol” or offer “factual allegations” to support the claim that consumers understand retinol to have certain benefits. And skin benefits discussed on the product packaging do not include a tie to retinol, according to the ruling.

The court thus dismissed consumer protection claims, and related unjust enrichment claims with leave to amend.

The case is . No. 25-cv-00770-HSG.

Judge: Gilliam, H.

Attorneys: Timothy G. Blood (Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP) for Marie Kobus, Niesha Lewis, Mary Devaney Sherengo, Ernell Vance and Nicole Davis. John Peter Hooper (King & Spalding LLP) for The Procter & Gamble Co.

Companies: The Procter & Gamble Co.

Cases: CaseDecisions FDCActNews CosmeticNews LabelingNews CaliforniaNews