The Every Man Jack lawsuit was a 2017 class action complaint filed in California federal court accusing parent company Presidio Brands, Inc. of deceptively marketing its men’s grooming products as “naturally derived,” “all-natural,” and “non-toxic” when they contained dozens of synthetic ingredients. The case, Shank v. Presidio Brands, Inc., never reached class certification. It was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice on January 23, 2019, after the named plaintiff and the company reached a confidential individual settlement.1ClassAction.org. Presidio Brands Hit With Lawsuit Over Every Man Jack Products
What the Lawsuit Alleged
California consumer Garret Shank filed the complaint on January 17, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:17-cv-00232).2ClassAction.org. Shank v. Presidio Brands Class Action Complaint The core accusation was straightforward: Presidio used natural-sounding language, wood-grain packaging, and plant imagery to convince health-conscious shoppers that Every Man Jack products were genuinely natural, and then charged a premium for them. According to the complaint, the products actually contained synthetic, artificial, and potentially hazardous ingredients that the company concealed.3Truth in Advertising. Every Man Jack
The suit covered more than 20 product types, including body wash, shampoo, conditioner, deodorant, shave cream, shave gel, face lotion, eye cream, pomade, and styling gel. It identified roughly 30 ingredients as synthetic, among them Dimethicone, Phenoxyethanol, Cocamidopropyl Betaine, PEG-based compounds, Aluminum Hydroxide, Polysorbates, Potassium Sorbate, Sodium Benzoate, Fragrance/Parfum, Tocopheryl Acetate, Triethanolamine, and Zinc Oxide.2ClassAction.org. Shank v. Presidio Brands Class Action Complaint The complaint borrowed its definition of “synthetic” from the Organic Foods Production Act (7 U.S.C. § 6502(21)), which covers substances formulated through a chemical process or chemically altered from their naturally occurring form.
Shank brought four causes of action under California law: violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and the False Advertising Law, plus negligent misrepresentation. He sought compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, and an injunction against the marketing. The complaint proposed a nationwide class and a California subclass and put the amount in controversy above $5 million.2ClassAction.org. Shank v. Presidio Brands Class Action Complaint
How the Case Ended
The lawsuit never got to a ruling on the merits, and no class was ever certified. About two years after the complaint was filed, the parties submitted a two-page stipulation of dismissal. The case was dismissed with prejudice on January 23, 2019, after Shank and Presidio settled on an individual basis. The settlement terms were not made public.1ClassAction.org. Presidio Brands Hit With Lawsuit Over Every Man Jack Products
Because the dismissal was with prejudice, Shank cannot refile the same claims.
Did Other Customers Get Anything?
No. The settlement resolved only the named plaintiff’s individual claims. No class was ever certified, so other Every Man Jack customers were not bound by the resolution and did not receive compensation. There is no claim form, no fund, and no notice period tied to this case.3Truth in Advertising. Every Man Jack
What Every Man Jack Changed Afterward
The company has not publicly connected any product changes to the litigation, but its formulations and marketing have shifted since. In 2023, Every Man Jack announced it had “updated our formulas to be even cleaner, improving our ingredient list to be as safe, effective, and sustainable as possible,” and published a list of ingredient categories it avoids, including parabens, phthalates, formaldehyde, SLS/SLES, and PFAS.4Every Man Jack. Sustainability Products
The brand’s current sustainability page also directly defends several ingredients it calls “misunderstood,” naming safe synthetic fragrances, Phenoxyethanol, Aluminum Chlorohydrate/Salts, and Dimethicone.4Every Man Jack. Sustainability Products All four appeared on the list of allegedly synthetic substances in the 2017 complaint.
Why “Natural” Claims Keep Ending Up in Court
Cases like this one exist in a regulatory gap. The FDA does not define “clean” or “natural” for cosmetics, and the FTC’s “Green Guides” on environmental marketing claims were last revised in 2012.5Federal Trade Commission. Green Guides The FTC sought public comments on potential updates in December 2022 and held a workshop in 2023, but no updated guidance on “naturally derived” claims has been issued. Without clearer federal standards, consumer class actions have been the main tool for challenging these labels.