Recent legal entanglements involving Sephora and Target, two high-profile retailers facing lawsuits for purportedly misleading clean beauty product customers, reflects prevailing uncertainties surrounding the regulation of this space. The absence of a clear cut framework to guide regulatory practices has given rise to health, sustainability, and safety-related considerations, amid other economic and public health intersectional issues.
The term ‘clean beauty’, whose popularity has soared in the recent years, traces its origins back to 1970s makeup trends. Its popularity rose further in the 1990s with the emergence of the clean eating movement in California. While it has often been associated with products free of harmful synthetic chemicals, exact specifications regarding what passes for clean beauty can be murky and quite subjective.
The FDA, as it stands, lacks an explicit definition for ‘clean’ regarding cosmetic claims. The agency does, however, enforce requirements ensuring such claims are truthful and not misleading and that the ingredients in these products are safe for their intended use. To this end, one wonders how the lawsuits against Target and Sephora can accuse the firms of deception.
While the FDA handles labeling claims, the FTC is tasked with overseeing advertising claims. The FTC ensures that advertisers back their product claims with “reasonable basis” before producing an advertisement. This especially applies to health-related claims, which clean beauty products frequently make.
A notable case highlighting the struggles surrounding litigations pertaining to clean beauty is that of Finster v. Sephora USA, Inc., wherein plaintiffs claimed Sephora’s ‘Clean at Sephora’ products contained ingredients not aligned with the typical consumer’s understanding of what ‘clean’ embodies.
Equity concerns in the clean beauty discussion also need to be addressed. The ingredients typical in these products, often indigenous to Black and Brown countries, and used by these communities for holistic wellness practices, are repackaged and sold without any benefits trickling down to the said communities.
With the clean beauty market projected to hit the $11.6 billion mark by 2027, stakeholders can expect more lawsuits related to deceptive practices. However, developments such as the FTC’s revised Green Guides, the newly published Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act, and fresh Health Products Compliance Guidance show progress towards comprehensive regulation.
The cases of Boyd v Target Corp. and Finster v. Sephora USA Inc. serve as illustrative examples of the ongoing legal challenges surrounding clean beauty products. As such, corporate legal teams and legal professionals would serve their clients well by keeping an eye on regulatory developments in this area. [Read More]