The beauty industry is increasingly targeted with consumer claims, including class action litigation, particularly in consumer-friendly states such as New York, California and Washington. Pursuant to the 2026 Lex Machina Class Action Litigation Report, there has been a “dramatic rise in consumer protection class actions, which surged to their highest level in a decade and now drive a significant share of overall filing growth.” Indeed, consumers filed more than 12,000 putative class actions in federal district courts in 2025, a significant increase from the prior year.
Law firms that are filing these lawsuits are increasingly focusing on skincare, cosmetics, haircare, fragrance and wellness products, challenging not only what products contain but how they are marketed, packaged, priced and presented to consumers. For brands selling into consumer-friendly states, routine marketing language can translate into significant legal exposure and reputational damage.
While it is essential for beauty companies to be able to communicate product benefits, it makes those companies a prime target for lawsuits because of the significant marketing claims behind beauty products. Marketing and product packaging often emphasize not only product benefits but ingredient content, safety, efficacy and eco-alignment. Such statements can form the basis of consumer product claims.
For example, California’s consumer protection statutes — the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law and related laws — allow cosmetic customers to challenge not just literal statements but also implied meanings, consumer perception and omissions. As a result, a product does not need to be defective to trigger liability; it only needs to be framed in a way that a “reasonable consumer” claims is misleading.
Risk Hot Spots
Several recurring areas are driving current litigation trends against the beauty industry:
- “Clean beauty” and ingredient transparency claims remain a major focus, particularly where terms like “clean,” “non-toxic,” “chemical-free,” or “safe” are used without clear definitions, or where products still contain synthetic or regulated ingredients.
- Efficacy and performance claims are also heavily scrutinized, especially where the underlying testing or substantiation is limited or not aligned with consumer expectations.
- Sustainability and ethics claims — such as “eco-friendly,” “reef-safe,” “vegan,” “cruelty-free,” or “sustainable” — are frequently challenged where definitions are unclear, certifications are inconsistent or supply chain realities do not align with the messaging.
- Litigation is also expanding into pricing and ecommerce practices, including reference pricing, discount claims, subscription programs and incomplete price disclosures.
- Automatic renewal programs — common in beauty for subscriptions and replenishment — are a hot source of liability under California’s Automatic Renewal Law (ARL). The law requires clear upfront disclosure of key terms (recurring charges, timing and cancellation), affirmative consumer consent and a straightforward way to cancel. Claims often arise where disclosures are not prominently displayed or cancellation is difficult. Even minor technical violations can lead to class action exposure, so subscription flows should be carefully designed and reviewed.
- Packaging claims, such as slack fill or misleading container design, are another growing area of focus. If a consumer believes that packaging is designed to fool a consumer into believing a package contains more product than reality, claims are often filed.
- Claims arising from chemical exposure pursuant to California’s Proposition 65 for failing to provide “clear and reasonable” warnings to California consumers before exposing them to listed chemicals.
- Digital and privacy practices — including influencer marketing, SMS and email campaigns, and website tracking — are increasingly scrutinized under both consumer protection and privacy theories.
- A critical and often overlooked risk area for beauty brands is the line between cosmetics and drugs. Drugs are heavily regulated and subject to additional approval requirements as compared to cosmetics. Under federal law, products that are intended to diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat or prevent disease — or that affect the structure or function of the body — are generally regulated as drugs. Beauty products can inadvertently cross the line from being classified as a cosmetic to a drug through marketing claims, packaging statements and general consumer perception. Statements suggesting that a product “corrects,” “treats,” and “reduces” can trigger drug classification. Once a product is deemed a drug, it may be subject to significantly more stringent regulatory requirements, including FDA approval, specific labeling rules and compliance with drug manufacturing standards. Consumers’ attorneys frequently leverage these issues in threatened consumer class actions, arguing that products are unlawfully marketed or misleading because they make impermissible drug claims without meeting the corresponding regulatory requirements.
Risk Reduction Strategies
Most claims follow a predictable pattern: a customer purchases a product, interprets a marketing claim broadly and alleges they were misled. However, note that many customers already have relationships with these law firms prior to bringing an action — meaning they are hired agents or law firm affiliates actively seeking out products with misleading packaging, even though they themselves have not been legitimately misled.
To reduce risk, beauty brands should focus on aligning marketing, scientific support and legal compliance. Claims should be substantiated with reliable evidence, whether through testing, studies or consumer perception data where appropriate. Language should be precise and avoid absolute or undefined terms unless they can be clearly supported.
A full understanding of The Green Guides, a key legal guide for green marketing, and other marketing guidance documents is essential. Disclosures should be clear, conspicuous and consistent across platforms. Coordination between legal, marketing, product development and regulatory teams is critical, particularly at the product development and launch stages.
Final Thoughts
Ultimately, the key issue is not only whether a claim is true, but how it is likely to be interpreted by a “reasonable consumer.” In practice, companies should conduct regular audits of packaging, websites (including social media), and marketing materials; maintain documentation supporting product claims; monitor competitor litigation and regulatory trends; review subscription and pricing practices; and establish a plan for responding to demand letters or regulatory inquiries.
Beauty brands that integrate legal compliance into their marketing and product strategy from the outset are better positioned to mitigate risk and avoid costly consumer litigation and class action lawsuits.
Sherry E. Jackman and Sedina L. Banks and are attorneys in the Environmental Group at Los Angeles-based Greenberg Glusker and specialize in advising clients on complex regulatory compliance matters and litigation. To learn more, visit www.greenbergglusker.com/environment.
