The Wondercide class action lawsuit was a 2019 federal case alleging that the company’s cedar-oil flea and tick spray was falsely marketed as “100% naturally derived” while actually containing synthetic ingredients. It was filed in the Eastern District of New York as Chanan Nathan Pasik v. Boon Technologies LLC, et al. (Case No. 1:19-cv-02357-FB-JO), and it ended on April 2, 2020, when the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice following a settlement whose terms were never made public.1Top Class Actions. Wondercide Class Action Says Flea Tick Spray Isnt All Natural2Truth in Advertising. Pasik v. Boon Technologies Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal
Plaintiff Chanan Nathan Pasik sued three defendants: Boon Technologies LLC, the Austin-based manufacturer; Wondercide LLC, described in the complaint as a fictitious name used by Boon Technologies; and founder and CEO Stephanie Lynn Boone, whom the complaint identified as personally responsible for the challenged conduct.3Truth in Advertising. Pasik v. Boon Technologies Complaint
What the Lawsuit Alleged
The core claim was that Wondercide Flea & Tick Control spray was sold as “100% naturally derived” and free of synthetic pesticides when it in fact contained two synthetic chemicals: Sodium Lauryl Sulfate (SLS), an industrially produced surfactant, and Ethyl Lactate, a synthetic solvent formed from lactic acid and ethanol. The complaint alleged an SLS concentration of 2.2%, which the plaintiff argued exceeded the 1% threshold identified by the Journal of the American College of Toxicology for products intended for prolonged skin contact.3Truth in Advertising. Pasik v. Boon Technologies Complaint
The complaint said the marketing went beyond a single tagline. Wondercide called the product “natural,” “green,” and “safe,” including claims that it was the “safest product possible,” “safe around children,” and “safe for daily use,” and marketing materials reportedly showed babies and small children in direct contact with the product.4Truth in Advertising. Wondercide Flea and Tick Control The complaint also alleged that Wondercide’s online ingredient glossary defined SLS as “coconut oil,” obscuring its synthetic nature, while the company asserted cedar oil was the product’s only active ingredient. Full ingredient lists, the plaintiff said, were not prominently displayed on the product’s Amazon listing.3Truth in Advertising. Pasik v. Boon Technologies Complaint
The Shark Tank Reformulation Claim
A pointed part of the complaint concerned timing. It alleged Wondercide had built its reputation on genuinely natural ingredients before appearing on Shark Tank in March 2016, then quietly reformulated the product afterward, swapping out hydrated silica (a naturally occurring substance) for SLS and Ethyl Lactate without updating its “all natural” marketing or disclosing the change to consumers.3Truth in Advertising. Pasik v. Boon Technologies Complaint The company itself acknowledged launching “a new formula with improved scents” after the episode, but did not publicly address the specific ingredient substitutions alleged in the lawsuit.5Wondercide. Wondercide a Year After Shark Tank an Interview With Our Founder
How the Case Ended
The lawsuit was filed in April 2019, amended in May 2019, and moved into discovery through the second half of that year. On April 2, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation of voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii).2Truth in Advertising. Pasik v. Boon Technologies Stipulation of Voluntary Dismissal Dismissal with prejudice meant the case was permanently closed and could not be refiled. According to Truth in Advertising, the dismissal followed a settlement between the parties, though no terms were disclosed.4Truth in Advertising. Wondercide Flea and Tick Control
Because the case ended in settlement, there was no ruling on the merits. No class was ever certified, and no consumer refund program was announced. If you bought the product during this period, the public record does not show a claims process tied to this case.
The FIFRA 25(b) Question the Case Left Unanswered
Wondercide’s products are not registered with the EPA. The company has stated it qualifies for an exemption under Section 25(b) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, which allows pesticides made from certain low-risk ingredients to be sold without the EPA’s standard registration and testing.6Wondercide. Its Whats Inside That Counts
To qualify under 25(b), a product’s inert ingredients must come from the EPA’s approved list. The EPA’s list of inert ingredients eligible for 25(b) exempt products does not include Sodium Lauryl Sulfate.7EPA. Minimum Risk Inert Ingredients With Tolerances SLS does appear on the EPA’s list of active ingredients exempt under 25(b), but being an approved active ingredient does not automatically qualify a substance for use as an inert.8University of Hawaii CTAHR. Minimum Risk Pesticides Guidance from the Association of American Pesticide Control Officials indicates that if SLS was functioning as an undeclared active ingredient while labeled as inert, the product could lose exempt status entirely.9AAPCO. 25(b) Inert Ingredient Guidance Because the case settled, no court ever ruled on this question.
Where Wondercide Stands Now
Stephanie Boone founded Wondercide in 2009, and the company operates through Boon Technologies LLC, formed in Texas in 2008.10Forbes. Why Walking Away From a Shark Tank Deal Isnt Always a Mistake3Truth in Advertising. Pasik v. Boon Technologies Complaint The current status of the business is mixed in the public record. The Better Business Bureau’s profile for Wondercide LLC carries an alert that the business is “out-of-business known or suspected,” though the company is not BBB accredited and the BBB reports insufficient information to issue a rating.11BBB. Wondercide LLC BBB Profile Wondercide’s own website still describes the company as being in business for 15 years.5Wondercide. Wondercide a Year After Shark Tank an Interview With Our Founder