The Burt’s Bees PFAS lawsuits, a set of class actions filed in 2022 alleging that cosmetics marketed as natural contained undisclosed “forever chemicals,” all ended without a settlement or a ruling on whether the products actually contained PFAS. The consolidated case was voluntarily dismissed, and every related PFAS action against the brand is now inactive.
What the Lawsuits Alleged
The first complaint, Gruen v. The Clorox Company, was filed on February 15, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.1Top Class Actions. Burt’s Bees Class Action Says Cosmetics Contain Harmful Forever Chemicals Plaintiff Daniela Gruen accused Clorox and its subsidiary, The Burt’s Bees Products Company, of marketing cosmetics as “over 95% natural origin” and free of “chemicals of concern” while failing to disclose the presence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.2Classaction.org. Burt’s Bees Cosmetic Products Contain Undisclosed Forever Chemicals, Class Action Alleges
Three more complaints followed in the same district: Spindel v. Burt’s Bees, Inc., Baez v. The Clorox Company, and Barrett v. The Clorox Company.3Top Class Actions. Burt’s Bees, CoverGirl Class Action Alleges Products Contain PFAS Despite Being Represented as Natural, Safe The Gruen, Spindel, and Baez cases were consolidated under the Gruen case number.4Thompson Coburn. PFAS Primer Update: Recent Developments Consumer Fraud Analysis
The theory was that consumers paid a premium for products they believed were clean and natural, and that undisclosed PFAS made those products “worthless or worth less than the purchase price.”5Classaction.org. Gruen v. The Clorox Company Complaint The consolidated complaint brought 14 counts, including violations of consumer protection laws in California, Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York, plus common-law claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment.6Truth in Advertising. Gruen v. Burt’s Bees Second Amended Complaint
Which Products Were Named
The lawsuits relied on independent testing by the consumer advocacy site Mamavation with Environmental Health News. An EPA-certified laboratory measured organic fluorine, which is used as a marker for PFAS because testing for individual PFAS compounds is expensive and covers only a fraction of the thousands that exist.7Environmental Health News. PFAS in Makeup – A Complicated Supply Chain
The highest results, in parts per million of organic fluorine, were:
- Eyeshadow with Bamboo (Dusky Woods): 449 ppm
- All Aflutter Mascara: 357 ppm
- Nourishing Mascara: 357 ppm
- Blush (Shy Pink): 223 ppm
- Lip Shimmer: 36 ppm
Mamavation treated anything above 30 ppm as “high exposure.” Other products, including the All Aglow Lip and Cheek Stick and Goodness Glows Liquid Makeup, returned non-detect results.8Mamavation. Burt’s Bees Makeup PFAS Forever Chemical Lab Results The consolidated complaint eventually named additional items, including Lip Shine, Matte Stick, and Satin Lipstick.9Seeger Weiss. Waterproof Makeup PFAS Lawsuit
The organic-fluorine method has known limits. PFAS can pool unevenly in a product, so samples from different parts of the same tube may differ by as much as 100 ppm, and non-PFAS fluorinated compounds can produce positive readings.7Environmental Health News. PFAS in Makeup – A Complicated Supply Chain
How the Cases Ended
None of the PFAS actions against Burt’s Bees produced a settlement or a decision on the merits. After a motion to dismiss was fully briefed in the consolidated Gruen matter, the named plaintiffs’ individual claims were voluntarily dismissed with prejudice and the class claims were dismissed without prejudice. The separate Barrett complaint was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice before the defendants even responded. All of the Burt’s Bees PFAS cases are listed as no longer active.4Thompson Coburn. PFAS Primer Update: Recent Developments Consumer Fraud Analysis
What that means in practice: no court decided whether PFAS were actually present in the products or whether the marketing was misleading. The named plaintiffs cannot refile their own individual claims, but the without-prejudice dismissal of the class claims leaves room for different plaintiffs to bring similar allegations later. No public settlement fund exists, and there is no claims process for consumers.
The Separate “100% Natural” Lip Products Case
A different lawsuit, Bruno v. Burt’s Bees, Inc., targeted the brand on a separate theory. Filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on March 2, 2022, and later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, the complaint alleged that roughly 50 Burt’s Bees lip products labeled “100% natural” contained hydrogenated oils, including hydrogenated castor oil, apricot kernel oil, and vegetable oil. Plaintiff Perry Bruno argued that the hydrogenation process makes those ingredients synthetic.10Classaction.org. 100% Natural Burt’s Bees Lip Products Contain Hydrogenated Oils, Class Action Says
In August 2022, Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett denied Burt’s Bees’ motion to dismiss, allowing the case to proceed. On December 7, 2022, the parties filed a stipulation to dismiss the case under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), and the case was terminated.11CourtListener. Perry Bruno v. Burt’s Bees, Inc. Docket The docket does not reflect a public settlement, and the terms of the stipulated dismissal were not disclosed.
Where PFAS Regulation Stands
No federal law prohibits the intentional addition of PFAS to cosmetics. On December 29, 2025, the FDA released a report required by the 2022 Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act and concluded that toxicological data for most PFAS commonly used in cosmetics is “incomplete or unavailable,” and that it could not definitively establish the safety of most of the compounds it evaluated.12U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Finds Insufficient Data to Determine Safety of PFAS in Cosmetic Products Ten states have enacted their own bans on intentionally added PFAS in cosmetics.13Exponent. FDA Releases PFAS Cosmetics Safety Report
Industry representatives have said that when PFAS turn up in cosmetics, they may enter through supply-chain contamination of raw materials, equipment coatings, or trace amounts in pigments rather than through deliberate addition.7Environmental Health News. PFAS in Makeup – A Complicated Supply Chain For consumers who bought the named Burt’s Bees products, the practical takeaway is that the litigation ended without any court finding of wrongdoing and without a route to compensation from these cases.