Dr. Squatch, the direct-to-consumer men’s soap and personal care brand, has been sued and challenged on four separate fronts since 2022: two consumer class actions over “natural” labeling on its shampoos and conditioners, a Procter & Gamble patent infringement suit over aluminum-free deodorant, and a series of advertising challenges before the Better Business Bureau’s National Advertising Division. Both class actions closed in February 2025, the PTAB has invalidated the P&G patents at the center of the deodorant fight, and Dr. Squatch has agreed to change or pull ads following each NAD proceeding. Here is where each Dr Squatch lawsuit and challenge stands.
The “Natural” Shampoo Class Actions
Fleming v. Dr. Squatch (Illinois)
Illinois consumer Lauren Fleming sued Dr. Squatch in the Northern District of Illinois in September 2022, arguing that the “Men’s Natural Shampoo” label was misleading because the product contained ingredients she said were synthetic or factory-produced, including decyl glucoside, glycerin, coco-glucoside, citric acid, xanthan gum, and undisclosed compounds inside the “fragrance.”1ClassAction.org. Class Action Cries Foul on Natural Ingredients Claim on Dr. Squatch Men’s Shampoo She also alleged that the oat protein, jojoba oil, and honey pictured on the front were present in much smaller amounts than a reasonable buyer would expect.2ClassAction.org. Fleming v. Dr. Squatch, LLC Complaint
In April 2024, Judge LaShonda A. Hunt granted Dr. Squatch’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, letting the core Illinois consumer fraud and unjust enrichment claims move forward.3Law360. Fleming v. Dr. Squatch, LLC The case was terminated on February 24, 2025, with a judgment entered on the docket. The public docket does not spell out whether the termination was a settlement, a voluntary dismissal, or another disposition.4CourtListener. Fleming v. Dr. Squatch, LLC
Napolitano v. Dr. Squatch (New York)
A second class action, filed by Jaime Napolitano in the Eastern District of New York in October 2024, went broader. It covered both shampoo and conditioner across seven varieties: Pine Tar, Fresh Falls, Cool Citrus, Summer Citrus, Cool Fresh Aloe, Coconut Castaway, and Frosty Peppermint.5Top Class Actions. Dr. Squatch Class Action Alleges Hair Care Products Falsely Advertised as Natural The complaint listed a longer set of allegedly synthetic ingredients, adding gluconolactone, sodium stearoyl lactylate, trehalose, sodium benzoate, potassium sorbate, and tocopherol to the ones Fleming had flagged, and brought claims under New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350.6Truth in Advertising. Napolitano v. Dr. Squatch Complaint
The case never reached class certification. On February 25, 2025, Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy dismissed it after the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal, with no right to appeal and no fees or costs awarded to either side.7PACER Monitor. Napolitano v. Dr. Squatch LLC
Neither case produced a class settlement or refund program that consumers can claim from. If you bought one of these products expecting a payout, there isn’t one on the public record.
Procter & Gamble’s Deodorant Patent Suit
In June 2024, Procter & Gamble sued Dr. Squatch in the Central District of California, alleging that Dr. Squatch’s natural deodorant sticks infringed five P&G patents covering aluminum-free deodorant compositions.8Jones Day. P&G Asserts Aluminum-Free Deodorant Patents Against Dr. Squatch Rather than fight the infringement case in district court first, Dr. Squatch’s attorneys at Venable LLP filed five inter partes review petitions at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, asking the PTAB to invalidate the patents.9Venable. Venable Secures Victory for Dr. Squatch in Dispute The district court paused the case in July 2024 by joint agreement, freezing discovery until the PTAB proceedings and any appeals conclude.10PatSnap. P&G v. Dr. Squatch Case Stayed Pending IPR
On January 29, 2026, the PTAB invalidated claims across three of the P&G patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 10,905,647, 11,497,706, and 10,966,915, finding them obvious or anticipated by prior art.11Law360. PTAB Knocks Down 3 More P&G Deodorant Patents A fourth patent fell as well, bringing the total to 71 claims struck across four patents.9Venable. Venable Secures Victory for Dr. Squatch in Dispute The fifth petition, targeting U.S. Patent No. 11,844,752, produced a final written decision on March 24, 2026, and P&G’s request for Director Review was denied on May 4, 2026.12IPverse GreyB. IPR2024-01498 Case Details
The infringement suit itself is still stayed. P&G can still appeal the PTAB rulings to the Federal Circuit, so the dispute is not fully over, but Dr. Squatch is in a strong position on the patents that started the fight.
Advertising Challenges at the NAD
Dr. Squatch has also been challenged three times before the BBB’s National Advertising Division, a self-regulatory body that reviews advertising claims. Each proceeding ended with Dr. Squatch agreeing to change or pull specific ads.
Unilever’s “No Harmful Ingredients” Challenge
Unilever challenged Dr. Squatch’s “no harmful ingredients” and “never uses harmful ingredients or harsh chemicals” messaging in late 2023. On December 5, 2023, the NAD found that the “no harmful ingredients” claim, on its own, was a permissible statement about Dr. Squatch’s own products. It drew the line at the accompanying skull-and-crossbones imagery and at comparative phrases like “I’m never going back to aluminum deodorant again!” and “Don’t hit the showers with neon goop that looks like a sports drink,” recommending Dr. Squatch stop using them because they implied competitors’ products were dangerous.13BBB National Programs. Dr. Squatch No Harmful Ingredients Dr. Squatch said it disagreed with several findings but agreed to comply going forward.
The Jukebox Soap NARB Appeal
In a separate Unilever challenge (NAD Case No. 7195) over Dr. Squatch’s Jukebox soap line, both sides appealed to the National Advertising Review Board. On November 22, 2023, the NARB panel upheld the NAD’s finding that Dr. Squatch had a “reasonable basis” for calling those soaps natural, but agreed that describing competing products as “detergents” was misleading and had to stop. Dr. Squatch agreed to comply.14BBB National Programs. Dr. Squatch NARB
P&G’s TikTok Influencer Challenge
In July 2025, P&G brought a Fast-Track SWIFT challenge at the NAD (Case No. 7481) over Dr. Squatch’s TikTok Shop affiliate program. P&G argued that influencers disclosed only that the “creator earns commission” from affiliate links, without revealing additional awards and prizes they received through the company’s reward program.15BBB National Programs. Dr. Squatch TikTok Dr. Squatch voluntarily and permanently pulled the ads before the NAD ruled and committed to complying with the FTC’s endorsement guidelines in future influencer posts.16Yahoo Finance. Following National Advertising Division Challenge Under NAD procedures, ads pulled that way are treated as if the NAD had formally recommended their removal.