The Hain Celestial Group makes a variety of sunscreens that it promotes at "reef friendly." What does "reef friendly" actually communicate to consumers? That was the issue in a recent lawsuit in federal court in California.
A consumer sued Hain Celestial under California law, alleging that the "reef friendly" claim that appears on packaging for the company's Alba Botanica sunscreen is misleading. She argued that the claim is misleading because the product contains a variety of chemicals -- including avobenzone, octocrylene, homosalate, and octyl salicylate -- that are known to harm coral reefs and marine life.
So, if that's true, what was Hain Celestial's basis for making a "reef friendly" claim? In 2018, Hawaii banned the use of two chemicals, oxybenzone and octinoxate, in sunscreens, based on the Hawaii legislature's determination that they were harmful to coral reefs. Hain Celestial's argument, then, is that the sunscreen is "reef friendly" since, consistent with Hawaiian law, it doesn't contain these two chemicals.
In California, false advertising and similar claims are governed by the "reasonable consumer" standard. This standard requires more than a mere possibility that a claim "might conceivably be misunderstood by some few consumers viewing it in an unreasonable manner." Rather, it must be "probable that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled."
Hain Celestial moved to...
Hyderabad: BRS leader Aedla Sudhakar Reddy strongly criticised the statements of HYDRAA commissioner A.V. Ranganath regarding the status of Bathukammakunta. The official had claimed that the place...