The Johnson & Johnson Aveeno class action is actually several lawsuits. The best known is Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., which ended in a $6.75 million settlement over the “Active Naturals” label. A related case targeted Aveeno Baby products, a Canadian action covered purchasers north of the border, and a separate multidistrict litigation dealt with benzene contamination in Aveeno and Neutrogena aerosol sunscreens.
What the Active Naturals Lawsuit Alleged
Michael Goldemberg filed the initial complaint on May 7, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Two additional named plaintiffs, Annie Le and Howard Petlack, later joined. The suit alleged that Johnson & Johnson violated New York consumer protection law, breached express warranties, and was unjustly enriched by marketing Aveeno products under the “Active Naturals” banner while the products contained dozens of synthetic chemicals.
The complaint listed ingredients the plaintiffs called synthetic, including glycerin, phenoxyethanol, several parabens, dimethicone, BHT, triethanolamine, sodium hydroxide, and various silicones and polymers. Those ingredients appeared in small type on the back of packaging, the plaintiffs said, while the prominent “Active Naturals” branding on the front implied the products were made from natural ingredients.
Who Was Covered and What They Could Claim
The settlement class was broad. It covered essentially any Aveeno product carrying the “Active Naturals” phrase on its label purchased in the United States or its territories between May 7, 2007, and June 13, 2017. That included moisturizers and body washes across the Daily Moisturizing and Skin Relief lines, facial care from the Positively Radiant, Ultra-Calming, and Clear Complexion ranges, sunscreens, hair care, baby products, eczema treatments, shave gels, and men’s grooming items.
Class members could claim $2.50 per product for up to 20 products, with no proof of purchase required, capping any individual payout at $50. Actual payouts depended on how many valid claims came in against the fund. The claims deadline was February 4, 2018, and that window is closed.
The Labeling Changes Johnson & Johnson Had to Make
Beyond the money, the settlement forced Johnson & Johnson to remove “Active Naturals” from the front of Aveeno labels. If the phrase still appeared on the back of a label for a product that wasn’t composed entirely of natural ingredients, the company had to add a disclaimer stating that the product contains both naturally derived and non-naturally derived ingredients.
Judge Nelson Stephen Roman granted final approval on November 1, 2017. Two objectors filed appeals but voluntarily dismissed them in January 2018. The court authorized $2.25 million from the fund for attorneys’ fees.
The Aveeno Baby Natural Oat Formula Case
A separate lawsuit, Langan v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., targeted a narrower set of products: Aveeno Baby Wash & Shampoo and Aveeno Baby Calming Comfort Bath. Filed in 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, it alleged that labeling those products as a “Natural Oat Formula” was misleading because they contained as many as 23 synthetic ingredients and were, per the complaint, only about one percent natural. Johnson & Johnson had already changed the labels by November 2012 for the wash and November 2013 for the bath, but the suit sought damages for past purchases.
After a trip to the Second Circuit that vacated class certification and sent the case back, the parties mediated and reached a $2.4 million settlement. Judge Janet M. Arterton granted final approval on July 12, 2019. Eligible consumers could claim $1 per product for up to 15 products without a receipt. Over 100,000 claims were filed, and the fund was distributed on January 10, 2020, with some claimants receiving checks of roughly $15. Leftover money went to the Nurse-Family Partnership as a cy pres recipient.
The Canadian Class Action
Canadian consumers had their own case. Consumer Law Group filed an application for authorization of a class action in the Superior Court of Québec in April 2018. The case, Piccolo v. Johnson & Johnson Inc. et al., alleged the same kind of misleading natural-ingredient marketing, citing synthetic chemicals such as sodium hydroxide, glycerin, and phenoxyethanol.
The parties reached a national settlement on August 13, 2021. Johnson & Johnson denied wrongdoing but agreed to a settlement fund of US$675,000. Canadian class members could claim CA$3.15 per product for up to 20 products, no proof of purchase required, for a maximum household payout of CA$126. The claims deadline was March 11, 2022, and the Superior Court of Québec approved the settlement on February 10, 2022. Johnson & Johnson also agreed to remove or modify “Active Naturals” labeling in Canada on a rolling basis between March 2021 and June 2023.
The Aveeno Sunscreen Benzene Litigation
A different Aveeno class action has nothing to do with the “Natural” labeling. In 2021, independent lab Valisure detected benzene in dozens of sun-care products and filed an FDA citizen petition. Johnson & Johnson’s own testing confirmed benzene in five product lines, and on July 14, 2021, the company issued a voluntary recall covering all lots of Neutrogena Beach Defense, Neutrogena Cool Dry Sport, Neutrogena Invisible Daily Defense, Neutrogena Ultra Sheer, and Aveeno Protect + Refresh aerosol sunscreens.
The company said it recalled the products “out of an abundance of caution” and that the benzene levels detected would not be expected to cause adverse health effects based on EPA exposure modeling. Benzene is classified as a known human carcinogen, and consumers filed both economic-loss class actions seeking refunds and individual personal injury suits alleging blood cancers from long-term use.
The economic-loss cases were consolidated as In re Johnson & Johnson Aerosol Sunscreen Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 3015) in the Southern District of Florida before Judge Raag Singhal. The court granted final approval of a settlement on February 28, 2023. Purchasers of recalled products could get full refunds, and purchasers of non-recalled but benzene-tainted products would receive vouchers worth a total of $1.75 million. Plaintiffs’ attorneys were set to receive $2.6 million in fees.
Class member Theodore Frank objected, arguing the vouchers amounted to a “coupon settlement” under the Class Action Fairness Act, that attorneys’ fees were disproportionate to the actual value class members would receive given low expected voucher redemption, and that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek certain injunctive relief. On June 20, 2024, the Eleventh Circuit agreed with key parts of that argument, vacated the settlement, and sent the case back to Judge Singhal. The appeals court directed the trial court to reevaluate whether the vouchers qualify as coupons under CAFA, recalculate fees accordingly, and assess whether any named plaintiff has standing to demand that Johnson & Johnson purge existing inventory of the suspect propellant and establish new benzene testing protocols.
As of mid-2024, the sunscreen case remains pending on remand, and no new settlement proposal has been publicly reported. Individual cancer-related lawsuits against Johnson & Johnson continue separately from the class action.