- 1 -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. _________________

MICHELLE SCHRIVER, CAROLINA 

GONZALEZ, ACHOREA TISDALE, and 

TRACY ALLISON, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CLASS ACTION

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Michelle Schriver, Carolina Gonzalez, Achorea Tisdale, and Tracy Allison

(together, “Plaintiffs”) bring this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, 

against Defendant Unilever United States, Inc. (“Unilever” or “Defendant”). Plaintiffs make the 

following allegations based upon (a) personal knowledge, (b) the investigation of counsel, and (c) 

information and belief.

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a class action lawsuit by Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, who 

purchased for normal household use Defendant’s dry shampoo products that are defective because 

they contain benzene, a known human carcinogen, and which were formulated, designed, 

manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, and sold by Defendant. 

2. Defendant distributes, markets, and sells to consumers across the United States, 

both in retail establishments and online, including in Florida, certain dry shampoo products under 

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 1 of 38
- 2 -

its various brands, including Suave, TIGI, TRESemmé, Dove, Nexxus, and Living Proof (the 

“Products”). 

3. The presence of benzene in the Products renders them adulterated, misbranded, and 

illegal to sell under federal and state law. 

4. Given the highly dangerous levels of benzene recently found in some of its 

competitors’ aerosol products, as well as Unilever’s need to recall certain of its own aerosol spray

deodorant products due to the presence of benzene, Unilever knew or should have known of the 

dangerous and carcinogenic effects of benzene and should have known that it was producing 

products that contained, or had a material risk of containing, benzene. 

5. Instead of disclosing this fact to consumers, Defendant represented that its Products 

are safe and effective for their intended use, touting its “strict quality controls” to “limit the 

presence of benzene” in its products.1 Nevertheless, Unilever has produced, marketed, labeled, 

distributed, and sold millions of dry shampoo Products that contained, or had a material risk of 

containing, benzene. 

6. The presence of benzene in Defendant’s Products was not disclosed to consumers 

in the Products’ labeling, advertising or otherwise, in violation of state and federal law. Plaintiffs

and the putative class suffered economic damages due to Defendant’s misconduct (as set forth 

below) and seek injunctive relief and restitution for the full purchase price of the Products. 

Plaintiffs allege the following based upon personal knowledge as well as investigation by counsel, 

and as to all other matters, upon information and belief. Plaintiffs further believe that substantial 

evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set forth herein after a reasonable opportunity for 

1

See https://www.unilever.com/brands/whats-in-our-products/your-ingredient-questionsanswered/controlling-impurities/ (last visited Nov. 9, 2022).

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 2 of 38
- 3 -

discovery.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(d), because 

at least one putative class member is of diverse citizenship from Defendant, there are more than 

100 class members nationwide, and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, 

exclusive of costs and interest.

8. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has 

purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business activities in the state of Florida. 

Defendant has marketed, promoted, distributed, and sold the Products in Florida, and Defendant 

has sufficient minimum contacts with this state and/or sufficiently availed itself of the markets in 

this state through promotion, sales, distribution, and marketing to render the exercise of 

jurisdiction by this Court permissible. 

9. Venue is proper in this District, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, because a substantial 

part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claims brought herein occurred or emanated

within this District, Defendant has marketed, advertised, and sold the Products in this District, 

and Defendant has caused harm to class members who reside in this District. In addition, two of 

the Plaintiffs are residents of this District.

PARTIES

10. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Michelle Schriver (for purposes of this paragraph, 

“Plaintiff”) was a citizen and resident of West Palm Beach, Florida. Plaintiff has purchased for 

household use Defendant’s Products, including Dove Dry Shampoo Volume and Fullness, for 

approximately 3 years. Plaintiff purchased 3-packs of the Product every 3 months on amazon.com. 

She received her last shipment in September 2021. She spent approximately $14 on each 3-pack 

of the Product. Based on the false and misleading claims by Defendant, at the time of purchase, 

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 3 of 38
- 4 -

Plaintiff was unaware that Defendant’s Products were adulterated with benzene. Plaintiff

purchased Defendant’s Products on the assumption that the labeling of Defendant’s Products was 

accurate and that the products were unadulterated, safe, and effective. Plaintiff would not have 

purchased Defendant’s Products had she known they contained benzene, a known human 

carcinogen. As a result, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact when she spent money to purchase Products 

she would not otherwise have purchased absent Defendant’s misconduct, as alleged herein. 

11. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Carolina Gonzalez (for purposes of this paragraph, 

“Plaintiff”) was a citizen and resident of Miami, Florida. Plaintiff has purchased for household use

Defendant’s Products, including TIGI Bed Head Matte Dry Shampoo for women, Oh Bee Hive!, 

from amazon.com in November 2020. She has spent approximately $10 on Defendant’s Products.

Based on the false and misleading claims by Defendant, at the time of purchase, Plaintiff was 

unaware that Defendant’s Products were adulterated with benzene. Plaintiff purchased

Defendant’s Products on the assumption that the labeling of Defendant’s Products was accurate 

and that the products were unadulterated, safe, and effective. Plaintiff would not have purchased 

Defendant’s Products had she known they contained benzene, a known human carcinogen. As a 

result, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact when she spent money to purchase Products she would not 

otherwise have purchased absent Defendant’s misconduct, as alleged herein. 

12. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Achorea Tisdale (for purposes of this paragraph, 

“Plaintiff”) was a citizen and resident of Sacramento, California. Plaintiff has purchased for 

household use Defendant’s Products approximately every 2 months for approximately the past 2 

years, including Dove Dry Shampoo Volume and Fullness, which she purchased at Target on 

November 19, 2021. Plaintiff has purchased Defendants product at Target and Walmart in 

Sacramento, California. She has spent approximately $5-10 on each one of Defendant’s Products. 

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 4 of 38
- 5 -

Based on the false and misleading claims by Defendant, at the time of purchase, Plaintiff was 

unaware that Defendant’s Products were adulterated with benzene. Plaintiff purchased

Defendant’s Products on the assumption that the labeling of Defendant’s Products was accurate 

and that the products were unadulterated, safe, and effective. Plaintiff would not have purchased 

Defendant’s Products had she known they contained benzene, a known human carcinogen. As a 

result, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact when she spent money to purchase Products she would not 

otherwise have purchased absent Defendant’s misconduct, as alleged herein. 

13. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Tracy Allison (for purposes of this paragraph, 

“Plaintiff”) was a citizen and resident of Champaign, Illinois. Plaintiff has purchased for household 

use Dove Dry Shampoo Volume and Fullness twice on amazon.com, the first time on February 

14, 2021, and the second time on September 3, 2021. She has spent an approximate total of $20

on Defendant’s Products. Based on the false and misleading claims by Defendant, at the time of 

purchase, Plaintiff was unaware that Defendant’s Products were adulterated with benzene. Plaintiff

purchased Defendant’s Products on the assumption that the labeling of Defendant’s Products was 

accurate and that the products were unadulterated, safe, and effective. Plaintiff would not have 

purchased Defendant’s Products had she known they contained benzene, a known human 

carcinogen. As a result, Plaintiff suffered injury in fact when she spent money to purchase Products 

she would not otherwise have purchased absent Defendant’s misconduct, as alleged herein. 

14. Defendant is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in 

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Defendant sells dry shampoo Products throughout the United 

States, including in the state of Florida. 

15. Defendant is part of the Unilever Group, an international consumer goods company 

that is comprised of two parent companies, Unilever N.V. in Rotterdam, Netherlands and Unilever 

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 5 of 38
- 6 -

PLC in London, United Kingdom. The Unilever Group operates in the United States under its 

subsidiary, Unilever United States, Inc., which operates as a single economic entity. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

16. Upon information and belief, Defendant sells and markets its Products under the 

names Suave, TIGI, TRESemmé, Dove, Nexxus, and Living Proof. Each product is marketed in 

the same or similar manner in that (i) it is a dry shampoo, (ii) it misrepresents or fails to disclose 

the presence of benzene (or the risk of the Product containing the same), and (iii) Defendant makes 

similar representations regarding the quality and safety of the Products.

17. Dry shampoo products, including the Products, are considered cosmetics that are 

regulated by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”). The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(“FDCA”) defines cosmetics by their intended use, as “articles intended to be rubbed, poured, 

sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to the human body . . . for cleansing, 

beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance[.]” FDCA § 201(i). 

18. The FDA acknowledges that “[c]osmetic companies have a legal responsibility for 

the safety of their products and ingredients.”2

19. The FDA recognizes the high danger of the chemical benzene and lists it as a “Class 

1 solvent” that “should not be employed in the manufacture of drug substances, excipients, and 

drug products because of their unacceptable toxicity. . . However, if their use is unavoidable in 

order to produce a drug product with a significant therapeutic advance, then their levels should be 

restricted” and benzene is restricted under such guidance to 2 parts per million (“ppm”).

3

2 Cosmetic Safety Q&A: Personal Care Products (https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/resourcesconsumers-cosmetics/cosmetics-safety-qa-personal-careproducts#:~:text=Cosmetic%20companies%20have%20a%20legal,product%20affects%20how%

20you%20look) (last visited Nov. 10, 2022).

3 Food and Drug Administration, Q3C – Tables and List Guidance for Industry (2018) 

(https://www.fda.gov/media/133650/download) (last visited Nov. 10, 2022). 

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 6 of 38
- 7 -

20. Since the Products are not drugs, any amount of the benzene is unacceptable and 

should not be employed in the manufacture of the Products. 

21. Benzene is used primarily in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, as a 

starting material and intermediate in the synthesis of numerous chemicals, and in gasoline. The 

major United States source of benzene is petroleum. The health hazards of benzene have been 

recognized for over one hundred years. 

22. According to the National Toxicology Program (“NTP”), benzene is “known to be 

a human carcinogen based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from studies in humans.”4

Benzene has also been “found to be carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for 

Research on Cancer (“IARC”).5 Benzene was “[f]irst evaluated by IARC in 1974 . . . and was 

found to be carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), a finding that has stood since that time.”6 As noted 

by the IARC:

In the current evaluation, the Working Group again confirmed the carcinogenicity 

of benzene based on sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans, sufficient 

evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, and strong mechanistic 

evidence. . . . In particular, benzene is metabolically activated to electrophilic 

metabolites; induces oxidative stress and associated oxidative damage to DNA; is 

genotoxic; alters DNA repair or causes genomic instability; is immunosuppressive; 

alters cell proliferation, cell death, or nutrient supply; and modulates receptormediated effects.7

23. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) states that the 

4 Benzene, Report on Carcinogens, Fourteenth Edition, DEPT. OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES (Nov. 3, 2016) (https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/content/profiles/benzene.pdf) (last 

visited Nov. 10, 2022) (emphasis in original).

5 Benzene, IARC MONOGRAPHS ON THE EVALUATION OF CARCINOGENIC RISKS TO 

HUMANS, Volume 120 (2018)

(https://publications.iarc.fr/_publications/media/download/6043/20a78ade14e86cf076c3981a9a0

94f45da6d27cc.pdf) (last visited Nov. 10, 2022).

6

Id.

7

Id. (emphasis in original).

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 7 of 38
- 8 -

Department of Health and Human Services has determined that benzene causes cancer in humans.8

The World Health Organization (“WHO”) and the IARC have classified benzene as a Group 1 

compound thereby defining it as “carcinogenic to humans.”9

24. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (“NIOSH”) recommends 

protective equipment be worn by workers expecting to be exposed to benzene at concentrations of 

0.1 ppm and defines “inhalation, skin absorption, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact” as exposure 

routes.10

25. The Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has estimated that lifetime 

exposure to benzene inhalation at 0.4 parts per billion (“ppb”), or 0.0004 ppm, will increase the 

risk of developing cancer in humans at the same 1 in 100,000 exposed persons rate as FDA uses 

to set regulatory limits on other trace impurities like N-nitrosamines.11

26. The FDA instructs that there is no safe level of benzene, and thus it “should not be 

employed in the manufacture of drug substances, excipients, and drug products because of [its] 

8

See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Facts About Benzene (2018) 

(https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/benzene/basics/facts.asp) (last visited Nov. 10, 2022).

9

See International Agency for Research on Cancer and World Health Organization, IARC 

Monographs on the Identification of Carcinogenic Hazards to Humans 

(https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-classifications) (last visited Nov. 10, 2022).

10 See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, The National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH), Benzene (October 30, 2019)

(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0049.html) (last visited Nov. 10, 2022); Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 

BENZENE: Systemic Agent (2011) 

(https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/emergencyresponsecard_29750032.html) (last visited Nov. 

10, 2022).

11 See Environmental Protection Agency, Benzene; CASRN 71-43-2 

(https://iris.epa.gov/static/pdfs/0276_summary.pdf) (last visited Nov. 10, 2022); Food and Drug 

Administration (February 2021), Control of Nitrosamine Impurities in Human Drugs 

(https://www.fda.gov/media/141720/download) (last visited Nov. 10, 2022).

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 8 of 38
- 9 -

unacceptable toxicity.”12

27. As previously stated, the Products are cosmetics. Among the ways a cosmetic may 

be adulterated are:

If it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance; or 

. . . whereby it may have been rendered injurious to health;13

28. A cosmetic is misbranded “[i]f its labeling is false or misleading in any 

particular.”

14

29. The manufacture of any misbranded or adulterated cosmetic is prohibited under 

federal law,15 and state laws including Florida.

16 The introduction into commerce of any 

misbranded or adulterated cosmetic is similarly prohibited.17 The receipt in interstate commerce 

of any adulterated or misbranded cosmetic is also unlawful.18

30. In October 2022, Unilever announced that “select lot codes of dry shampoo aerosol 

products produced prior to October 2021 from Dove, Nexxus, Suave, TIGI (Rockaholic and Bed 

12 FDA, Q3C–2017 Tables and List Guidance for Industry 

(https://www.fda.gov/media/71737/download) (last visited Nov. 10, 2022).

13 21 U.S.C. §351(a)(2)(B); see also Fla. Stat. § 499.006(1) & (2) (“A drug or device is adulterated, 

if any of the following apply: (1) It consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed 

substance[;] (2) It has been produced, prepared, packed, or held under conditions whereby it could 

have been contaminated with filth or rendered injurious to health.”).

14 21 U.S.C. §352(a)(1); see also Fla. Stat. § 499.007(1) (A drug is misbranded “[i]f its labeling is 

in any way false or misleading.”)

15 21 U.S.C § 331(g).

16 See Fla. Stat. § 499.005(1) (“It is unlawful for a person to perform or cause the performance of 

any of the following acts in this state: (1) The manufacture, repackaging, sale, delivery, or holding 

or offering for sale of any drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded or has 

otherwise been rendered unfit for human or animal use.”).

17 21 U.S.C. §331(a); Fla. Stat. § 499.005(1).

18 21 U.S.C. §331(c); see also Fla. Stat. § 499.005(3)(“It is unlawful for a person to perform or 

cause the performance of any of the following acts in this state: ... (3) The receipt of any drug, 

device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded, and the delivery or proffered delivery of 

such drug, device, or cosmetic, for pay or otherwise.”).

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 9 of 38
- 10 -

Head), and TRESemmé” were being recalled “due to potentially elevated levels of benzene.” 

Unilever instructed consumers to “stop using the affected aerosol dry shampoo products.”19

31. As a result of benzene contamination in the Products, they are considered 

adulterated and misbranded. Defendant did not disclose that benzene, a known human carcinogen, 

is present in the Products purchased by Plaintiffs and the putative class members. 

32. Defendant’s failure to control for benzene contamination and failure to disclose the 

risks of benzene in its adulterated Products constitutes unfair and deceptive conduct. 

33. Defendant’s recall of the Products is wholly inadequate where, among other things: 

(a) it is limited to products purchased before October 2021, even though products sold after this 

date likely continue to be contaminated; (b) it is limited to only specific lots of the Products; (c) to 

get compensation under the recall, consumers are required to have proof of purchase, which is 

unlikely for disposable products bought at retail stores that are over a year old; (d) although 

Defendant states “[a]n internal investigation identified the propellant as the source, and Unilever 

has worked with its propellant suppliers to address this issue,”20 this is not useful to consumers 

who already used and were exposed to Defendant’s dangerous products.

34. Unilever knew the risk of its Products being contaminated with benzene at least as 

early as July 2021. Around that time, Unilever’s top competitors began recalling aerosol products 

due to the presence of benzene and faced litigation based on those recalls. Also, in November 

2021, Valisure, an independent laboratory, confirmed the presence of benzene in dozens of aerosol 

antiperspirants and sunscreens and submitted a citizens’ petition to the Food and Drug 

Administration describing those findings, including that two of Unilever’s Suave antiperspirants 

19 https://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls-market-withdrawals-safety-alerts/unilever-issues-voluntaryus-recall-select-dry-shampoos-due-potential-presence-benzene (last visited Nov. 9, 2022).

20 https://www.unileverrecall.com/ (last visited Nov. 9, 2022).

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 10 of 38
- 11 -

contained benzene. Unilever ultimately faced numerous lawsuits arising from the Suave 

contamination beginning in late 2021. 

35. In December 2021, following the discovery of benzene in certain aerosol spray 

sunscreens made by various companies, as well as further investigations into the use of aerosol as 

presenting a specific risk, Unilever responded to an inquiry by Forbes magazine: “Unilever said in 

an emailed statement it conducted a ‘robust investigation’ of its antiperspirants and deodorants and 

is confident in their safety.”

21

36. In March 2022, Unilever announced the decision to recall several Suave deodorant 

products due to the presence of benzene, which the company acknowledged is a “human 

carcinogen” that “can result in cancers including Leukemia and blood cancer of the bone marrow 

and blood disorders which can be life threatening.”22

37. Unilever attributed the presence of benzene in its Suave deodorant products to the 

fact that they were aerosol spray products (like Defendant’s dry shampoo Products), and stated 

that Benzene is not an ingredient: “While benzene is not an ingredient in any of the recalled 

products, the review showed that unexpected levels of benzene came from the propellant that 

sprays the product out of the can.”23

38. Also, on October 31, 2022, Valisure again petitioned the FDA to address dangerous 

levels of benzene in consumer products, this time focusing on dry shampoo products.

24 Valisure 

21 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-12-29/toxins-in-household-products-leavefda-chasing-a-vapor-trail (last visited Nov. 9, 2022).

22 https://www.unileverusa.com/news/press-releases/2022/unilever-issues-voluntary-nationwiderecall-of-suave-24hour/ (last visited Nov. 9, 2022).

23 Id.

24 See Valisure Citizen Petition on Benzene in Dry Shampoo Products (“Citizens Petition”) at 1

(available at https://assets-global.websitefiles.com/6215052733f8bb8fea016220/6360f7f49903987d8f4f4309_Valisure%20FDA%20Citiz

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 11 of 38
- 12 -

found that numerous dry shampoo products contain benzene in amounts well over the 2 ppm 

threshold permitted for certain drugs.

25

39. In its October 31, 2022 Citizen Petition, Valisure shows data from the analysis of 

benzene by directly sampling contaminated air after spraying dry shampoo products, which 

suggests potential for short- and long-term inhalation exposure to high levels of benzene.26 The 

presence of this known human carcinogen in dry shampoo products that are regularly used indoors 

and in large volumes makes this finding especially troubling.27

40. Given that dry shampoos are cosmetics – not drugs – these results are even more 

concerning. Because dry shampoo products contain no active pharmaceutical ingredient for 

therapeutic purpose, the presence of benzene at these levels is unacceptable.28

41. Despite knowing the significant probability that the Products contain benzene, 

Unilever represented to Plaintiff and putative class members that its Products are healthy and safe. 

In fact, in Unilever’s labeling and product packaging, and in its advertising – including on its 

website and online – Unilever promotes and indeed instructs that the Products are not just for 

occasional use but also for daily (and regular, repeated) use.29

en%20Petition%20on%20Benzene%20in%20Dry%20Shampoo%20Products_103122.pdf) (last 

visited November 1, 2022).

25 Id. at 2, 13-17.

26 Id.

27 Id.

28 Id.

29 https://www.suave.com/us/en/products/hair-refresher-dry-shampoo.html (last visited Nov. 9, 

2022).

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 12 of 38
- 13 -

42. On its website, Unilever declares: “Product safety is our top priority. Our home and 

personal care products are used every day by millions of people around the world. People trust us 

to provide them with products that are safe for them, their families and the environment.”30

43. Moreover, Unilever states on its website: 

At a minimum we ensure our products comply with applicable laws. In several 

areas we set our standards higher than those required by law. When this happens [,] 

we also expect our suppliers and partners to meet these standards. Similarly, when 

we take on a new brand or a new company we work to ensure they meet our 

standards as soon as possible.31

44. Unilever brand Dove touts its robust commitment to consumer health: “We care 

about our customers and the environment, so our products are as safe as they are caring. We want

to give our customers the best experience using our products, so our ingredients always comply 

with regulations and meet our safety and environmental standards (which often go beyond 

regulatory requirements).”32

45. Unilever specifically represents that its products are safe from benzene, stating on 

its website: “we have strict quality controls in place that limit the presence of benzene in our 

products so that any traces found fall within safe levels.”33

46. Defendant advertised and sold the Products without labeling indicating to 

consumers that they contain benzene. The following image is illustrative of the labels contained 

on the Products purchased by Plaintiffs and putative class members. Plaintiffs note that while the 

labeling contains “Warnings,” none of them are for the presence of a carcinogenic ingredient:

30 https://www.unilever.com/brands/whats-in-our-products/how-do-we-choose-our-ingredients/ 

(last visited Nov. 9, 2022).

31 Id.

32 https://www.dove.com/us/en/secure/contactus/faq.html (last visited Nov. 9, 2022).

33 https://www.unilever.com/brands/whats-in-our-products/your-ingredient-questionsanswered/controlling-impurities/ (last visited Nov. 9, 2022).

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 13 of 38
- 14 -

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 14 of 38
- 15 -

47. Plaintiffs and putative class members bargained for a dry shampoo free of 

contaminants and dangerous substances and were deprived the basis of their bargain when 

Defendant sold them a product containing the carcinogen benzene, which rendered the Products 

unmerchantable and unfit for use.

48. Plaintiffs and putative class were injured by the full purchase price of the Products 

because the Products are worthless, as they are adulterated and contain the known human 

carcinogen, benzene, and are not fit for use by humans. Defendant failed to warn consumers of 

this fact. Such illegally sold products are worthless and have no value. 

49. Plaintiffs have standing to represent members of the putative class because there is 

sufficient similarity between the specific Products purchased by Plaintiffs and the other Products 

not purchased by Plaintiffs. Specifically, each and every one of Defendant’s Products (i) are 

marketed in substantially the same way—as dry shampoo— and (ii) fail to include labeling 

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 15 of 38
- 16 -

indicating to consumers that the Products contain the known human carcinogen, benzene, at levels 

that are dangerous to human health when used as directed. Accordingly, the misleading effect of 

all of the Products’ labels are substantially the same.

50. Had Plaintiffs and members of the putative class known that any of the Products 

were contaminated with benzene, a known human carcinogen, they would not have purchased any 

of Defendant’s Products. Thus, Plaintiffs and members of the putative class have “lost money” by 

purchasing products they would not have otherwise purchased but for Defendant’s 

misrepresentations and omissions. As a result, Plaintiffs and members of the putative class have 

Article III standing.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

51. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23(a), 23(b)(2)-(3) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated as members of the 

following class (the “Class”) and subclasses (collectively referred to as the “Subclasses”) defined 

as:

Class:

All persons in the United States (including its Territories and the District of 

Columbia) who purchased any Products for personal use or consumption.

California Subclass:

All persons in the state of California who purchased any Products for personal use 

or consumption.

Florida Subclass:

All persons in the state of Florida who purchased any Products for personal use or 

consumption.

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 16 of 38
- 17 -

Illinois Subclass:

All persons in the state of Illinois who purchased any Products for personal use or 

consumption.

52. Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and

discovery, the foregoing definition of the Classes may be expanded or narrowed by amendment or

amended complaint. Specifically excluded from the proposed Classes are Defendant, its officers,

directors, agents, trustees, parents, children, corporations, trusts, representatives, employees,

principals, servants, partners, joint venturers, or entities controlled by Defendant, and their heirs,

successors, assigns, or other persons or entities related to or affiliated with Defendant and/or their

officers and/or directors, or any of them; the Judge assigned to this action, and any member of the

Judge’s immediate family.

53. Certification of Plaintiffs’ claims for Class-wide treatment is appropriate because 

Plaintiffs can prove the elements of their claims on a Class-wide basis using the same evidence as 

would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same claim.

54. Numerosity. Rule 23(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: The members 

of the Classes are so numerous and geographically dispersed that individual joinder of all Class 

members is impracticable. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that the 

proposed Classes contain many tens or hundreds of thousands of members. The precise number of 

Class members is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.

55. Commonality and Predominance. Rules 23(a)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure: This action involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate 

over any questions affecting individual Class members, including, but not limited to:

a. Whether Defendant misrepresented and/or failed to disclose material facts 

concerning the Products;

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 17 of 38
- 18 -

b. Whether Defendant’s conduct was unfair and/or deceptive; 

c. Whether Defendant has been unjustly enriched as a result of the unlawful 

conduct alleged in this Complaint such that it would be inequitable for Defendant to retain the 

benefits conferred upon Defendant by Plaintiffs and the Class; 

d. Whether Defendant breached an express warranty;

e. Whether Defendant breached an implied warranty;

f. Whether Plaintiffs and the Class have sustained damages with respect to the 

common law claims asserted, and if so, the proper measure of their damages; and 

g. Whether an injunction is necessary to prevent Defendant from continuing 

to market and sell defective and adulterated Products that contain benzene, a known human 

carcinogen. 

56. Typicality. Rule 23(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Plaintiffs’

claims are typical of the other Class members’ claims because, among other things, all Class 

members were comparably injured through Defendant’s uniform misconduct described above and 

were subject to Defendant’s deceptive claims that accompanied each and every Product in 

Defendant’s collection. Plaintiffs are advancing the same claims and legal theories on behalf of 

themselves and all putative Class members. 

57. Adequacy. Rule 23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Plaintiffs are

adequate Class representatives because their interests do not conflict with the interests of the other 

members of the Class they seek to represent; Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and 

experienced in complex class action litigation; and Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this action 

vigorously. The Class’s interests will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiffs and their

counsel.

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 18 of 38
- 19 -

58. Declaratory Relief. Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 

Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiffs and Class 

members, thereby making appropriate declaratory relief, with respect to the Classes as a whole.

59. Plaintiffs seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive and equitable relief on behalf 

of the entire Class, on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class, to enjoin and prevent 

Defendant from engaging in the acts described above, such as continuing to market and sell 

Products that are adulterated with benzene, and requiring Defendant to provide a full refund of the 

purchase price of the Products to Plaintiffs and Class members.

60. Unless a class is certified, Defendant will retain monies received as a result of their 

conduct that were taken from Plaintiffs and the Class members. Unless a Class-wide injunction is 

issued, Defendant will continue to commit the violations alleged and the members of the Class and 

the general public will continue to be misled.

61. Superiority. Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A class action 

is superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, 

and no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action. 

The damages or other financial detriment suffered by Plaintiffs and Class members are relatively 

small compared to the burden and expense that would be required to individually litigate their 

claims against Defendant, so it would be impracticable for Class members to individually seek 

redress for Defendant’s wrongful conduct. Even if Class members could afford individual 

litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation creates a potential for inconsistent 

or contradictory judgments, and increases the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. 

By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the 

benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single 

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 19 of 38
- 20 -

court.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

Breach of Express Warranty

(On Behalf of the Class, or Alternatively, the Subclasses)

62. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

63. Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of themselves and the Classes against 

Defendant.

64. Plaintiffs and each Class member purchased Defendant’s Products from common 

retail settings. There was no learned intermediary between the manufacturer and the end-purchaser 

at the time of purchase and the express warranties were on the Product packaging, labeling, and 

via direct-to-consumer advertising. 

65. Plaintiffs and each Class member formed a contract with Defendant at the time 

Plaintiffs and the other Class members purchased Defendant’s Products. The terms of the contract 

include the promises and affirmations and omissions of fact made by Defendant on its Product 

packaging, labeling, and through marketing and advertising. This labeling, marketing, and 

advertising constitute express warranties and became part of the basis of the bargain, and are part 

of the standardized contract that Defendant entered into with Plaintiffs and each Class member.

66. Defendant expressly warranted that its Products were fit for their ordinary use (i.e., 

as a safe product suitable for human application) are not just for occasional use but also for daily 

(and regular, repeated) use.34 Defendant expressly warrants that its products are safe from 

34 https://www.suave.com/us/en/products/hair-refresher-dry-shampoo.html (last visited Nov. 9, 

2022).

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 20 of 38
- 21 -

benzene, stating on its website: “we have strict quality controls in place that limit the presence of 

benzene in our products so that any traces found fall within safe levels.”35

67. Plaintiffs and each Class member read and relied on one or more of the express 

warranties provided by Defendant in the labeling, packaging, and written advertisements in 

deciding to purchase the Products.

68. Defendant’s Products did not conform to Defendant’s express representations and 

warranties because they were not manufactured in compliance applicable standards, were not 

suitable for human application, and were adulterated and misbranded.

69. At all times relevant all the following States and Territories have codified and 

adopted the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code: Ala. Code § 7-2-313; Alaska Stat. § 

45.02.313; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 47-2313; Ark. Code. Ann. § 4-2-313; Cal. Com. Code § 2313; 

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 4-2-313; Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 42a-2-313; 6 Del. Code. § 2-313; D.C. Code. 

§ 28:2-313; Fla. Stat. Ann. § 672.313; Ga. Code. Ann. § 11-2-313; Haw. Rev. Stat. § 490:2-313; 

Idaho Code § 28-2-313; 810 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-313; Ind. Code Ann. § 26-1- 2-313; Kan.

Stat. Ann. § 84-2-313; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 355.2-313; 11 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 2-313; Md. 

Code. Ann. § 2-313; Mass. Gen. Law Ch. 106 § 2-313; Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 440.2313; Minn. 

Stat. Ann. § 336.2-313; Miss. Code Ann. § 75-2-313; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 400.2- 313; Mont. Code 

Ann. § 30-2-313; Nev. Rev. Stat. U.C.C. § 104.2313; N.H. Rev. Ann. § 382- A:2-313; N.J. Stat. 

Ann. § 12A:2-313; N.M. Stat. Ann. § 55-2-313; N.Y. U.C.C. Law § 2-313; N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. 

§ 25-2-313; N.D. Stat. § 41-02-313; Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1302.26; Okla. Stat. tit. 12A § 2-313; 

Or. Rev. Stat. § 72.3130; 13 Pa. C.S. § 2313; P.R. Laws. Ann. Tit. 31, § 3841, et seq.; R.I. Gen. 

35 https://www.unilever.com/brands/whats-in-our-products/your-ingredient-questionsanswered/controlling-impurities/ (last visited Nov. 9, 2022).

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 21 of 38
- 22 -

Laws § 6A-2-313; S.C. Code Ann. § 36-2-313; S.D. Stat. § 57A-2-313; Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-2-

313; Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 2-313; Utah Code Ann. § 70A2-313; Va. Code § 8.2- 313; 

Vt. Stat. Ann. 9A § 2-313; W. Va. Code § 46-2-313; Wash. Rev. Code § 62A 2-313; Wis. Stat. 

Ann. § 402.313 and Wyo. Stat. § 34.1-2-313.

70. At the time that Defendant marketed and sold its Products, it recognized the 

purposes for which the products would be used, and expressly warranted the products were suitable 

for human application and not adulterated or misbranded. These affirmative representations 

became part of the basis of the bargain in every purchase by Plaintiffs and each Class member. 

71. Plaintiffs and each Class member are natural persons who are reasonably expected 

to use, consume, or be affected by the adulterated and/or misbranded Products manufactured and 

sold by Defendant. 

72. Defendant breached its express warranties with respect to its Products because the 

products were not suitable for human application because they were adulterated with benzene and 

misbranded.

73. Plaintiffs and each Class member would not have purchased the Products had they 

known the products contained benzene, were not suitable for human application, did not comply 

with applicable standards, and/or were adulterated and misbranded. 

74. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of express warranty, 

Plaintiffs and other Class members have been injured and suffered damages in the amount of the 

purchase price of their Products, and any consequential damages resulting from the purchases, in 

that the Products they purchased were so inherently flawed, unfit, or unmerchantable as to have 

no market value.

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 22 of 38
- 23 -

COUNT II

Breach of the Implied Warranty

(On Behalf of the Class, or Alternatively, the Subclasses)

75. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

76. Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of themselves and the against Defendant.

77. Defendant was at all relevant times the manufacturer, distributor, warrantor and/or 

seller of the Products. Defendant knew or had reason to know of the specific use for which its 

Products were purchased. 

78. Because the Products contain benzene, they were not of the same quality as those 

generally acceptable in the trade and were not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such Products 

are used. 

79. Plaintiffs and members of the Class purchased the Products in reliance upon 

Defendant’s skill and judgment and the implied warranties of fitness for the purpose. 

80. The Products were not altered by Plaintiffs or members of the Class.

81. Plaintiffs and members of the Class were foreseeable users of the Products. 

82. Plaintiffs and members of the Class used the Products in the manner intended. 

83. As alleged, the Products were not adequately labeled and did not disclose that they 

contain benzene.

84. The Products did not measure up to the promises stated in the written literature, 

media advertisement and communications by and from Defendant.

85. Defendant impliedly warranted that the Products were merchantable, fit, and safe 

for ordinary use. On its website, Unilever declares: “Product safety is our top priority. Our home 

and personal care products are used every day by millions of people around the world. People trust 

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 23 of 38
- 24 -

us to provide them with products that are safe for them, their families and the environment.” And: 

“At a minimum we ensure our products comply with applicable laws. In several areas we set our 

standards higher than those required by law. When this happens [,] we also expect our suppliers 

and partners to meet these standards. Similarly, when we take on a new brand or a new company 

we work to ensure they meet our standards as soon as possible.”36

86. Defendant further impliedly warranted that the Products were fit for the particular 

purposes for which they were intended and sold. At the time Defendant marketed and otherwise 

placed its Products into the stream of commerce, it knew of the particular purpose for which 

Plaintiffs and the Class members purchased the Products—to have a safe and effective dry 

shampoo—which did not contain any dangerous carcinogens. Defendant also knew that 

consumers, including Plaintiffs and members of the Class, would have no ability or opportunity to 

determine the ingredients in the Products, but instead would rely on Defendant’s representations 

that the Products were suitable for their particular purpose and free of dangerous carcinogens (i.e., 

benzene).

87. Contrary to these implied warranties, the Products were defective, unmerchantable, 

and unfit for their ordinary use when sold, and unfit for the particular purpose for which they were 

sold. 

88. Further, as the intended consumers and ultimate users of the Products, Plaintiffs 

and the Class members are intended third-party beneficiaries of any contracts between Defendant 

and any retailers from whom Plaintiffs obtained Products, which contain the implied warranty of 

merchantability and to be fit for ordinary purposes, safe, and not hazardous to one’s health. 

36 https://www.unilever.com/brands/whats-in-our-products/how-do-we-choose-our-ingredients/ 

(last visited Nov. 9, 2022).

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 24 of 38
- 25 -

Plaintiffs and the Class members, not any retailers, are the parties intended to benefit by any such 

contract because they are the people using the Products in the manner intended. 

89. In breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, the Products that Defendant 

provided to Plaintiffs and the Class members are not fit and suitable for their ordinary purpose 

because, inter alia, they contain a dangerous carcinogen with the potential of causing serious injury 

and/or death. Defendant’s Products supplied to Plaintiffs and the Class members did not possess 

the basic degree of fitness for ordinary use due to the defects described herein. The defects are so 

basic that they render the Products unfit for their ordinary purposes. As such, they are not 

merchantable. 

90. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiffs and the Class 

members have suffered, and will continue to suffer, significant damages, loss and injury in an 

amount that will be established at trial.

COUNT III

Unjust Enrichment

(On Behalf of the Class, or Alternatively, the Subclasses)

91. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

92. Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of themselves and the Classes against 

Defendant. 

93. Plaintiffs, and the other members of the Class, conferred benefits on Defendant in 

the form of monies paid to purchase Defendant’s defective and worthless Products.

94. Defendant voluntarily accepted and retained this benefit. 

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 25 of 38
- 26 -

95. Because this benefit was obtained unlawfully, namely by selling and accepting 

compensation for products unfit for human use, it would be unjust and inequitable for Defendant

to retain the benefit without paying the value thereof. 

96. Defendant received benefits in the form of revenues from purchases of the Products 

to the detriment of Plaintiffs, and the other members of the Class, because Plaintiffs, and members 

of the Class, purchased mislabeled products that were not what they bargained for and were not 

safe and effective, as claimed. 

97. Defendant was unjustly enriched in retaining the revenues derived from the 

purchases of the Products by Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class. Retention of those 

monies under these circumstances is unjust and inequitable because Defendant’s labeling of the 

Products was misleading to consumers, which caused injuries to Plaintiffs, and members of the 

Class, because they would have not purchased the Products had they known the true facts. 

98. Because Defendant’s retention of the non-gratuitous benefits conferred on them by 

Plaintiffs and members of the Class is unjust and inequitable, Defendant must pay restitution to 

Plaintiffs and members of the Class for its unjust enrichment, as ordered by the Court. 

COUNT IV

Violation of the California False Advertising Law

(CAL BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17500 et seq.)

On Behalf of the California Subclass

99. Plaintiff Tisdale realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations 

as though fully set forth herein.

100. Plaintiff Tisdale brings this claim on behalf of herself and the California Subclass

members against Defendant. 

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 26 of 38
- 27 -

101. California’s False Advertising Law prohibits any statement in connection with the 

sale of goods “which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of 

reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500.

102. Defendant’s untrue and misleading statements significantly impacted the public 

because Defendant sells the Products nationwide, including in California, and there are hundreds 

of thousands of consumers of the Products, including Plaintiff Tisdale and the California Subclass

103. As set forth herein, Defendant’s claims that the Products were and are safe for use 

by individuals were false because the Products in fact contain or have material risk of containing 

an unsafe chemical, benzene, which could cause a user to suffer adverse health effects from use of 

the Products and were likely to deceive the public.

104. Defendant’s claims that the Products were and are safe for use by individuals were 

and are untrue and misleading because they failed to mention the presence of an unsafe chemical, 

benzene, which could cause a Product user to suffer adverse health effects from use of the Products.

105. Defendant’s representations and omissions were material because they were likely 

to deceive reasonable consumers to induce them to purchase the Products without being aware that 

the Products contained or had a material risk of containing carcinogenic benzene.

106. Defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, that all these claims were 

untrue or misleading and likely to deceive the public.

107. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s false advertising, Plaintiff Tisdale 

and the California Subclass have been harmed, and that harm will continue unless Defendant is 

enjoined from using the misleading marketing described herein in any manner in connection with 

the advertising and sale of the Products.

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 27 of 38
- 28 -

108. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s false advertising, Plaintiff Tisdale 

and the California Subclass suffered damages by purchasing the Products because they received a 

product that was essentially or completely worthless because it contains, or has a material risk of 

containing, carcinogenic benzene, and they would not have purchased or would have paid less for 

the Products had they known this fact.

109. Defendant’s conduct caused and continues to cause substantial injury to Plaintiff 

and the other California Subclass members. Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact as a result of 

Defendant’s unlawful conduct, including economic injury. 

110. In addition, Defendant’s unlawful conduct is continuing, with no indication of 

Defendant’s intent to cease this fraudulent course of conduct, posing a threat of future harm to 

Plaintiff Tisdale and the California Subclass, such that prospective injunctive relief is necessary. 

Plaintiffs and the California Subclass are entitled to injunctive and equitable relief and restitution 

in the amount they spent on the Products, as well as any other just and proper relief, pursuant to 

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17535 and applicable law.

COUNT V

Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law

(CAL BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200 et seq.)

On Behalf of the California Subclass

111. Plaintiff Tisdale realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations 

as though fully set forth herein.

112. Plaintiff Tisdale brings this claim on behalf of herself and the California Subclass

members against Defendant. 

113. The California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) prohibits any “unlawful, unfair 

or fraudulent business act or practice.” Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 28 of 38
- 29 -

114. Defendant is a “person” as defined by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17201.

115. For the reasons discussed herein, Defendant violated and continues to violate the 

California UCL by engaging in the herein described deceptive and unfair acts or practices 

proscribed by Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq. Defendant’s acts and practices were likely 

to, and in fact did, deceive and mislead members of public, including consumers acting reasonably 

under the circumstances, to their detriment.

116. Defendant deceptively represented that the Products were and are safe for use by 

individuals when in fact they contain, or have a material risk of containing, an unsafe chemical, 

benzene, which could cause a Product user to develop cancer from the use of the Products.

117. Defendant has engaged in “unlawful” business practices by violating multiple laws, 

including the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq.; the 

California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq.; and The Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq.

118. Defendant’s conduct with respect to the labeling, packaging, advertising, 

marketing, and sale of the Products is “unfair” because Defendant’s conduct was immoral, 

unethical, unscrupulous, or substantially injurious to consumers and the utility of its conduct, if 

any, does not outweigh the gravity of the harm to its victims.

119. Defendant’s conduct with respect to the labeling, packaging, advertising, 

marketing, and sale of the Products is also “unfair” because it violates public policy as declared 

by specific constitutional, statutory, or regulatory provisions, including but not limited to the

California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California False Advertising Law, and the Federal 

Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 29 of 38
- 30 -

120. Defendant’s conduct with respect to the labeling, packaging, advertising, 

marketing, and sale of the Products is also “unfair” because the consumer injury is substantial, not 

outweighed by benefits to consumers or competition, and not one that consumers, themselves, can 

reasonably avoid.

121. A statement or practice is “fraudulent” under the UCL if it is likely to mislead or 

deceive the public, applying an objective reasonable consumer test.

122. As set forth herein, Defendant’s claims relating the representations and omissions 

stated on the Products’ labeling and marketing statements mislead reasonable consumers regarding 

the presence of benzene in the Products.

123. Defendant profited from its sale of the falsely, deceptively, and unlawfully 

advertised the Products to unsuspecting consumers, including Plaintiff Tisdale and the California 

Subclass members. 

124. Defendant acted intentionally, knowingly, and maliciously to violate California’s 

UCL, and recklessly disregarded Plaintiffs’ and the California Subclass members’ rights. Highly 

dangerous levels of benzene recently found in some of Defendant’s competitors’ aerosol products, 

as well as Defendant’s need to recall certain of its own aerosol spray deodorant products due to 

the presence of benzene, put Defendant on notice of benzene contamination of its Products. 

125. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s false advertising, Plaintiff Tisdale 

and the California Subclass have been harmed, and that harm will continue unless Defendant is 

enjoined from using the misleading marketing described herein in any manner in connection with 

the advertising and sale of the Products.

126. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s fraudulent, unfair, and unlawful 

practices, Plaintiff Tisdale and California Subclass suffered damages by purchasing the Products 

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 30 of 38
- 31 -

because they received a product that was essentially or entirely worthless because it contains, or 

has a material risk of containing, a carcinogenic compound, benzene, and they would not have 

purchased or would have paid less for the Products had they known this fact.

127. Defendant’s fraudulent, unfair, and unlawful practices Defendant’s conduct caused 

and continues to cause substantial injury to Plaintiff and the other California Subclass Members. 

Plaintiff has suffered injury in fact as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, including 

economic injury.

128. Pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203, Plaintiff Tisdale and the California 

Subclass seek an order enjoining Defendant from continuing to conduct business through 

deceptive, unfair, or unlawful acts and practices. Defendant’s misconduct is continuing, with no 

indication of Defendant’s intent to cease this deceptive, unlawful, and unfair course of conduct, 

posing a threat of future harm to Plaintiff Tisdale and the California Subclass, such that prospective 

injunctive relief is necessary.

129. Plaintiff Tisdale and the California Subclass also seek an order for the restitution 

of all monies from the sale of the Products, which were unjustly acquired through acts of deceptive, 

unfair, or unlawful acts and practices, as well as any other just and proper relief pursuant to Cal. 

Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203 and applicable law.

COUNT VI

Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act

(FLA. STAT. §§ 501.201 et seq.)

On Behalf of the Florida Subclass

130. Plaintiffs Schriver and Gonzalez reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding 

allegations as though fully set forth herein.

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 31 of 38
- 32 -

131. Plaintiffs Schriver and Gonzalez bring this claim individually and on behalf of the 

Florida Subclass against Defendant pursuant to section 501.211, Florida Statutes.

132. The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) makes 

unlawful “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” § 501.204(1), Fla. Stat.

133. Plaintiffs Schriver and Gonzalez and the Florida Subclass members are 

“consumers” within the meaning of section 501.203(7), Florida Statutes.

134. Defendant is engaged in the practice of manufacturing, marketing, distributing, 

selling and otherwise placing into the stream of commerce the Products, which constitutes trade 

and commerce as defined by section 501.203(8), Florida Statutes, and is therefore subject to 

FDUPTA.

135. As alleged herein, Plaintiffs have suffered injury in fact and lost money as a result 

of Defendant’s conduct because they purchased Products from Defendant in reliance on 

Defendant’s representation that the ingredients in its Products were safe and effective and were 

not adulterated with benzene, a known human carcinogen.

136. As alleged herein, Defendant’s actions are deceptive and in clear violation of 

FDUTPA, entitling Plaintiffs Schriver and Gonzalez and the Florida Subclass to damages and 

relief under sections 501.201-213, Florida Statutes.

137. Defendant has engaged, and continues to engage, in conduct that is likely to deceive 

members of the public. This conduct includes representing in its labels that its Products contain 

only the ingredients listed in the label, which is untrue, and failing to make any mention that the 

certain Products are adulterated with benzene, a known human carcinogen.

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 32 of 38
- 33 -

138. By committing the acts alleged above, Defendant has engaged in unconscionable, 

deceptive, or unfair acts or practices, which constitute unfair competition within the meaning of 

FDUTPA.

139. Defendant’s conduct is substantially injurious to consumers. Consumers are 

purchasing and using Defendant’s Products without knowledge that the Products are contaminated 

with a human carcinogen. This conduct has caused, and continues to cause, substantial injury to 

consumers because consumers would not have paid for the Products contaminated with benzene 

but for Defendant’s false labeling, advertising, and promotion. Thus, Plaintiffs and the putative 

Class have been “aggrieved” (i.e., lost money) as required for FDUTPA standing, and such an 

injury is not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.

140. Indeed, no benefit to consumers or competition results from Defendant’s conduct. 

Since consumers reasonably rely on Defendant’s labeling of the ingredients and other information 

disclosing what is contained in the Products and injury resulted from ordinary use of the Products, 

consumers could not have reasonably avoided such injury.

141. Further, Defendant’s conduct is ongoing and continuing, such that prospective 

injunctive relief is necessary. Plaintiffs desire to purchase Defendant’s Products in the future if 

they can be assured that the Products are unadulterated and meet the advertising claims. Absent 

injunctive relief, Defendant may continue to advertise, promote, and sell adulterated Products that 

deceive the public as to their ingredients, contents and/or safety. Plaintiffs are thus likely to again 

be wronged in a similar way. For example, if Plaintiffs or the Class members encounter 

Defendant’s Products in the future and there is a risk those products still contain benzene, Plaintiffs 

or Class members may mistakenly rely on the product’s label to believe that Defendant’s 

eliminated benzene when they did not.

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 33 of 38
- 34 -

142. Plaintiffs and putative Class members are entitled to recover their reasonable 

attorney’s fees pursuant to section 501.2105, Florida Statutes.

143. Further, Plaintiffs Schriver and Gonzalez and the Florida Subclass seek an order 

enjoining Defendant from continuing to conduct business through fraudulent or unlawful acts and 

practices and to commence a corrective advertising campaign. Defendant’s conduct is ongoing and 

continuing, such that prospective injunctive relief is necessary.

144. On behalf of Plaintiffs Schriver and Gonzalez and the Florida Subclass, Plaintiffs

also seek an order entitling the Class to recover all monies spent on the Defendant’s Products, 

which were acquired through acts of fraudulent, unfair, or unlawful competition.

145. In addition, the measure of restitution should be full refund of the purchase price 

insofar as the Products and their associated labels are worthless. But for Defendant’s 

misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiffs and Class members would have paid nothing for 

Products containing benzene. Indeed, there is no discernible “market” for an over-the-counter dry 

shampoo product that is adulterated with a known human carcinogen. As recognized by the WHO, 

“[b]enzene is carcinogenic to humans, and no safe level of benzene can be recommended.”37 As a 

result, Defendant’s Products are rendered valueless.

146. Wherefore, Plaintiffs Schriver and Gonzalez and the Florida Subclass are entitled 

to injunctive and equitable relief, and a full refund in the amount they spent on the Defendant’s 

Products. 

37 See https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-CED-PHE-EPE-19.4.2 (last visited Nov. 2, 

2022).

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 34 of 38
- 35 -

COUNT VII

Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act

(815 ILCS 501/1, et seq. and 510/2)

On Behalf of the Illinois Subclass

147. Plaintiff Allison realleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations 

as though fully set forth herein.

148. Plaintiff Allison brings this claim on behalf of herself and the Illinois Subclass

members against Defendant.

149. Defendant, Plaintiff, and the Illinois Subclass are “persons” within the meaning 815 

ILCS 505/1(c) and 510/1(5). Plaintiffs and the Illinois Subclass members are “consumers” within 

the meaning of 815 ILCS 505/1(e). 

150. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant engaged in “trade” or “commerce” in 

Illinois as defined by 815 ILCS 505/1(f), in that it engaged in the “advertising,” “offering for sale,” 

“sale,” and “distribution” of any “property,” “article,” “commodity” or “thing of value” in Illinois.

151. The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“IFCA”) 

provides that “. . . [u]nfair or or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or 

employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the 

concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the 

concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact, or the use or employment of any 

practice described in Section 2 of the ‘Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act’... in the conduct 

of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful whether any person has in fact been misled, 

deceived or damaged thereby.” 815 ILCS 505/2. The ICFA further makes unlawful deceptive trade 

practices undertaken in the course of business. 815 ILCS 510/2.

152. For the reasons discussed herein, Defendant violated and continues to violate ICFA 

by engaging in the deceptive or unfair acts or practices prohibited by 815 ILCS 505/2 and 510/2. 

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 35 of 38
- 36 -

Defendant’s acts and practices, including its material omissions, described herein, were intended 

to, likely to, and did in fact, deceive and mislead members of the public, including consumers 

acting and relying reasonably under the circumstances, to their detriment. 

153. Defendant repeatedly advertised on the labels for the Products, on its websites, and 

through national advertising campaigns, among other items, that the Products were and are safe, 

suitable, and fit for their intended purpose use and purpose. Defendant failed to disclose the 

material information that the Products contained or materially risked containing carcinogenic 

benzene. 

154. Defendant’s representations and omissions were material because they were likely 

to deceive reasonable consumers to induce them to purchase the Products without being aware that 

the Products contained or materially risked containing carcinogenic benzene. 

155. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unfair and deceptive acts or 

practices, Plaintiff Allison and the Illinois Subclass members suffered damages by purchasing the 

Products in reliance on Defendant’s statements because they would not have purchased the 

Products had they known the truth, and they received a product that was worthless, and/or worth 

less, because it contains or materially risks containing carcinogenic benzene. 

156. Defendant’s unlawful conduct is continuing, with no indication of Defendant’s 

intent to cease this fraudulent course of conduct, posing a threat of future harm to Plaintiff Allison, 

the Illinois Subclass, and the general public. Thus, Defendant’s unlawful acts and practices 

complained of herein affect the public interest. 

157. Pursuant to 815 ILCS 505/10a(a) and 510/3, Plaintiff and the Illinois Subclass seek 

an order enjoining Defendant’s unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices, and awarding damages, 

punitive damages, and any other just and proper relief available under the ICFA.

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 36 of 38
- 37 -

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the other members of the Classes 

alleged herein, respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against 

Defendant as follows: 

A. For an order certifying the Classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and naming Plaintiffs as the representatives for the Classes and Plaintiffs’ attorneys as 

Class Counsel; 

B. For an order declaring the Defendant’s conduct violates the causes of action 

referenced herein; 

C. For an order finding in favor of Plaintiffs and the Classes on all counts asserted 

herein;

D. For compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by 

the Court and/or jury; 

E. For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded; 

F. For an order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief; 

G. For injunctive relief as pleaded or as the Court may deem proper; and 

H. For an order awarding Plaintiffs and the Classes their reasonable attorneys’ fees 

and expenses and costs of suit.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs and Class members hereby demand a trial by jury, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

38(b), of all issues so triable.

Dated: November 11, 2022. Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Kristen Lake Cardoso 

Kristen Lake Cardoso (FBN 44401)

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 37 of 38
- 38 -

Jeff Ostrow (FBN 121452)

Jonathan M. Streisfeld (FBN 117447)

KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON

WEISELBERG GILBERT

One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

cardoso@kolawyers.com

ostrow@kolawyers.com

streisfeld@kolawyers.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Putative Classes

Case 1:22-cv-23706-XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/11/2022 Page 38 of 38