1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

BEFORE THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES 

In the Matter of: Docket No. 9408 

Intuit Inc., a corporation. 

NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY 

Respondent Intuit Inc. respectfully submits this notice of supplemental authority from the 

Ninth Circuit—McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093 (9th Cir. 2023)—pertinent to 

Professor Novemsky’s survey.1

 

McGinity involved dismissal of consumer-protection claims alleging that the use of the 

phrase “Nature Fusion” created a false impression that certain products were “natural.” Slip Op. 

5, 7.2

 Plaintiff “relie[d] heavily” on the results of a “not particularly instructive or helpful” 

survey, where participants were shown only the “products’ front labels” and “did not have access 

to the back label.” Slip Op. 6, 12. The Ninth Circuit explained that this “omission” “undermines 

the extent to which we can fairly rely on the survey results as being instructive of how the 

‘reasonable consumer’ understands the phrase ‘Nature Fusion’ in the context of the products.” 

Slip Op. 12. The Ninth Circuit further explained that “[h]ad the survey participants had access to 

the products’ back labels, they would have had an immediate answer” as to what “Nature 

1

 Intuit’s counsel did not become aware of this recent decision until after filing its post-trial reply 

brief. 

2 McGinity involved claims under California’s consumer protection statutes, which are governed 

by the “‘reasonable consumer’ standard,” Slip Op. 7, and interpreted in conformity with the FTC 

Act, Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal. App. 4th 496, 506-507 (2003). 

PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 1 of 19 * PUBLIC * 
2 

Fusion” meant—they would have “see[n] that the products contain avocado oil, a natural 

ingredient, as well as many synthetic ingredients.” Slip Op. 13. Thus, the Ninth Circuit 

concluded that “[w]ith the entire product in hand ... no reasonable consumer would think that the 

products are either completely or substantially natural.” Slip Op. 13. 

Whereas the McGinity survey was discredited for only showing the “front label,” 

Professor Novemsky’s survey is even worse because (as has been extensively briefed and 

argued) he did not provide his survey participants any pieces of the challenged ads. See, e.g., 

Intuit’s Post-Trial Reply Br. 53-54. McGinity is further on-point authority that Professor 

Novemksy’s survey deserves no weight. 

Dated: June 30, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

 By:/s/ David Z. Gringer 

Howard M. Shapiro 

Jonathan E. Paikin 

Jennifer Milici 

Derek A. Woodman 

Wilmer Cutler Pickering 

 Hale and Dorr LLP 

2100 Pennsylvania Ave NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

Telephone: (202) 663-6000 

Facsimile: (202) 663-6363 

Howard.Shapiro@wilmerhale.com 

Jonathan.Paikin@wilmerhale.com 

Jennifer.Milici@wilmerhale.com 

Derek.Woodman@wilmerhale.com 

David Z. Gringer 

Wilmer Cutler Pickering 

 Hale and Dorr LLP 

7 World Trade Center 

250 Greenwich St. 

New York, NY 10007 

Telephone: (212) 230-8800 

Facsimile: (212) 230-8888 

David.Gringer@wilmerhale.com 

Attorneys for Intuit Inc. 

PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 2 of 19 * PUBLIC * 
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SEAN MCGINITY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v. 

THE PROCTER & GAMBLE 

COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-15080 

D.C. No.

4:20-cv-08164-

YGR 

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted March 29, 2023

San Francisco, California

Before: Ronald M. Gould, Marsha S. Berzon, and Sandra 

S. Ikuta, Circuit Judges.

Filed June 9, 2023

Opinion by Judge Gould;

Concurrence by Judge Gould

PUBLIC 

ADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 3 of 
2 MCGINITY V. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO.

SUMMARY*

Product Labeling

The panel affirmed the district court’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(b)(6) dismissal of Sean McGinity’s action alleging that 

The Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”) violated 

California consumer protection laws by labeling some of its 

products with the words “Nature Fusion” in bold, capitalized 

text, with an image of an avocado on a green leaf.

McGinity contended that P&G’s packaging “represents 

that the Products are natural, when, in fact, they contain nonnatural and synthetic ingredients, harsh and potentially 

harmful ingredients, and are substantially unnatural.”

McGinity stated that if he had known when he purchased 

them that the products were not “from nature or otherwise 

natural,” he would not have purchased the products or paid 

a price premium for the products. McGinity asserted claims 

under California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), 

California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”), and 

California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”).

McGinity’s claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA are 

governed by the “reasonable consumer” standard. The panel 

held that there was some ambiguity as to what “Nature 

Fusion” means in the context of its packaging, and it must 

consider what additional information other than the front 

label was available to consumers of the P&G products. The 

panel rejected McGinity’s contention that circuit precedent 

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

PUBLIC 

ADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 4 of 
MCGINITY V. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. 3

precluded P&G from relying on the back ingredient list to 

derive the meaning of “Nature Fusion.” Here, the front label 

containing the words “Nature Fusion” was not misleading—

rather, it was ambiguous. Upon seeing the back label, it 

would be clear to a reasonable consumer that avocado oil is 

the natural ingredient emphasized in P&G’s labeling and 

marketing.

McGinity relied heavily on the results of the consumer 

survey that his counsel had commissioned from a third 

party. The panel held that although it accepted the 

allegations concerning the survey as true at this stage of 

litigation, the survey was not particularly instructive or 

helpful in deciding this case. Here, the survey participants 

did not have access to the back label of the products. This 

omission to a degree undermined the extent to which the 

panel could fairly rely on the survey results as being 

instructive of how the “reasonable consumer” understood 

the phrase “Nature Fusion” in the context of the 

products. Rather than demonstrating that the phrase “Nature 

Fusion” was misleading, the survey results confirmed that it 

was ambiguous. With the entire product in hand, the panel 

concluded that no reasonable consumer would think that the 

products were either completely or substantially natural.

The survey results did not make plausible the allegation that 

the phrase “Nature Fusion” was misleading.

Judge Gould, joined by Judge Berzon, concurred.

Although McGinity did not successfully show that P&G’s 

“Nature Fusion” labeling was deceptive as a matter of law, 

he wrote separately to express his view that P&G’s labeling 

nonetheless resembled a concerning practice known as 

“greenwashing.” Greenwashing refers to a set of deceptive 

marketing practices in which an entity publicly 

misrepresents or exaggerates the positive environmental 

PUBLIC 

ADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 5 of 
4 MCGINITY V. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO.

impact or attributes of a product. Here, although there was 

only one natural ingredient in the products, the word 

“Nature” was in bold, capitalized text on the front labels and 

was one of the largest words on the bottles, second only to 

the brand name, “Pantene.”

COUNSEL

George V. Granade (argued), Reese LLP, Los Angeles, 

California; Michael Reese, Reese LLP, New York, New 

York; for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Anne M. Voigts (argued), King & Spalding LLP, Palo Alto, 

California; George R. Morris, King & Spalding LLP, San 

Francisco, California; John P. Hooper, King & Spalding 

LLP, New York, New York; for Defendant-Appellee.

PUBLIC 

ADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 6 of 
MCGINITY V. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. 5

OPINION

GOULD, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff-Appellant Sean McGinity sued DefendantAppellee The Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”), 

alleging that P&G violated California consumer protection 

laws by labeling some of its products with the words “Nature 

Fusion” in bold, capitalized text, with an image of an 

avocado on a green leaf. After the district court dismissed 

McGinity’s second amended complaint for failure to state a 

claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), 

McGinity appealed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291, and we affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. The products

In June 2019, Sean McGinity purchased “Pantene Pro-V 

Nature Fusion” shampoo and conditioner at a Safeway 

grocery store in Santa Rosa, California. The shampoo and 

conditioner are products manufactured, marketed, sold, and 

labeled by P&G. The products’ front labels display the 

words “Nature Fusion” in bold, capitalized letters, an image 

of an avocado on a green leaf, and an image of what appears 

to be a gold vitamin with the word “PRO-V” on it.

McGinity contends that P&G’s packaging “represents 

that the Products are natural, when, in fact, they contain nonnatural and synthetic ingredients, harsh and potentially 

harmful ingredients, and are substantially unnatural.” 

McGinity has stated that he purchased the products, and paid 

a premium for them, because he wanted to buy “natural” 

personal care products. If McGinity had known when he 

purchased them that the products were not “from nature or 

PUBLIC 

ADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 7 of 
6 MCGINITY V. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO.

otherwise natural,” he would not have purchased the 

products or paid a price premium for the products.

McGinity’s counsel commissioned an independent third 

party to conduct a survey of more than 400 consumers 

regarding their impressions of the products’ front labels. 

Survey participants did not have access to the products’ back 

labels. Survey results showed that, when given pictures of 

the front of the products, 74.9% of consumers thought the 

label conveyed that the shampoo contained more natural 

than synthetic/artificial ingredients, and 77.4% of consumers 

thought the same about the conditioner. When asked about 

the phrase “Nature Fusion,” 52.6% of consumers thought 

that the phrase “Nature Fusion” meant that the product did 

not contain synthetic ingredients; 49.1% of consumers 

thought that the phrase “Nature Fusion” meant that the 

product contained only natural ingredients; and 69.2% of 

consumers thought that the phrase “Nature Fusion” meant 

that the product contained both natural and synthetic 

ingredients.

B. Procedural history

McGinity asserted claims under California’s Unfair 

Competition Law (“UCL”), California’s False Advertising 

Law (“FAL”), and California’s Consumers Legal Remedies 

Act (“CLRA”). P&G moved to dismiss McGinity’s original 

complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 

The district court granted the motion to dismiss with leave 

to amend. McGinity later filed his amended complaint, 

which P&G again moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). 

The district court stated that McGinity’s original and 

amended complaints failed for the same reason: the 

complaints did not “allege sufficient facts to show that a 

reasonable consumer would be deceived by P&G’s 

PUBLIC 

ADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 8 of 
MCGINITY V. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. 7

labeling.” The district court dismissed McGinity’s second 

amended complaint, and he appealed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

“We review de novo the district court’s grant of a motion 

to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting all factual 

allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in 

the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Ebner v. 

Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting 

Skilstaf, Inc. v. CVS Caremark Corp., 669 F.3d 1005, 1014 

(9th Cir. 2012)). Determining whether a complaint states a 

plausible claim for relief is a “context-specific task,” 

requiring “the reviewing court to draw on its judicial 

experience and common sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 679 (2009). If support exists in the record, a dismissal 

may be affirmed on any proper ground. See Johnson v. 

Riverside Healthcare Sys., LP, 534 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 

2008); Adams v. Johnson, 355 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 

2004); Papa v. United States, 281 F.3d 1004, 1009 (9th Cir. 

2002).

III. DISCUSSION

A. Deceptive or misleading practice

Appellant’s claims under the UCL, FAL, and CLRA are

governed by the “reasonable consumer” standard. Williams 

v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008).

That standard requires that Appellants “show that members

of the public are likely to be deceived.” Id. (internal

quotation marks and citation omitted). The California

Supreme Court has recognized that these statutes prohibit

explicitly false advertising and advertising that is “either

actually misleading[,] or which has a capacity, likelihood[,]

or tendency to deceive or confuse the public.” Id. (quoting

PUBLIC 

ADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 9 of 
8 MCGINITY V. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO.

Kasky v. Nike, Inc., 27 Cal.4th 939, 951 (2002)). The 

reasonable consumer standard requires more than a mere 

possibility that the label “might conceivably be 

misunderstood by some few consumers viewing it in an 

unreasonable manner.” Ebner, 838 F.3d at 965 (quoting 

Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal. App. 4th 496, 508 

(2003)). Rather, the reasonable consumer standard requires 

a probability “that a significant portion of the general 

consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting 

reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled.” Id.

(citation omitted). The touchstone under the “reasonable 

consumer” test is whether the product labeling and ads

promoting the products have a meaningful capacity to 

deceive consumers.

In Moore v. Trader Joe’s Co., we held that the label

“100% New Zealand Manuka Honey” was not likely to 

deceive a reasonable consumer into believing that the 

product contained only honey from the Manuka flower. 4 

F.4th 874, 876–77 (9th Cir. 2021). We reasoned that there

was “some ambiguity as to what 100% mean[t] in the phrase,

‘100% New Zealand Manuka Honey’”: it could mean, as

examples, that the Manuka flower was the only source of the

honey, that the Manuka flower was the primary source of the

honey, or that 100% of the honey was from New Zealand.

Id. at 882. Because of this ambiguity, we explained that

“reasonable consumers would necessarily require more

information before they could reasonably conclude Trader

Joe’s label promised a honey that was 100% derived from a

single, floral source.” Id. This additional information could

be something on the rest of the packaging (e.g., the

ingredient list), the relative price of the product, or in the

context of honey, general knowledge about how honey is

made. See id. at 882–85. While the reasonable consumer is

PUBLIC 

DE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 10 o
MCGINITY V. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. 9

not expected to be an expert in honey production, the 

reasonable consumer should know that beekeepers cannot

force bees to gather honey from only certain types of 

flowers. Id. at 883. We agreed with the district court’s 

conclusion that other available information about Trader 

Joe’s Manuka Honey would dissuade a reasonable consumer 

from thinking that the product was derived only from

Manuka flower nectar. Id. at 882–883.

Here, like in Trader Joe’s, there is some ambiguity as to 

what “Nature Fusion” means in the context of its packaging. 

Appellants argue that the phrase could be interpreted to 

mean that the product contains a mixture of natural 

ingredients, while Appellees argue that the phrase should be 

interpreted to mean that the product contains a mixture of 

both natural and synthetic ingredients. The ambiguity of the 

phrase is further shown by the nearly 50/50 split in survey 

responses interpreting whether the phrase means that the 

products are all-natural and lack synthetic ingredients.

1

 At 

the same time, nearly 70% of survey respondents said yes 

when asked whether the phrase meant that the products 

contain both natural and synthetic ingredients. This

ambiguity means that, like in Trader Joe’s, we must consider 

what additional information other than the front label was 

available to consumers of the P&G products. See id. 

McGinity contends that circuit precedent precludes P&G 

from relying on the back ingredient list to derive the meaning 

of “Nature Fusion.” We disagree.

1 According to the survey, 52.6% of consumers thought that the phrase 

“Nature Fusion” meant that the product did not contain synthetic 

ingredients; 49.1% of consumers thought that the phrase “Nature 

Fusion” meant that the product contained only natural ingredients.

PUBLIC 

DE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 11 o
10 MCGINITY V. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO.

Whether a back label ingredients list “can ameliorate any 

tendency of [a] label to mislead” depends on whether the 

“back label ingredients list . . . conflict[s] with” or 

“confirm[s]” a front label claim. Moore v. Mars Petcare US, 

Inc., 966 F.3d 1007, 1017 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). 

In other words, if a defendant does commit an act of 

deception on the front of a product, then “the presence of 

fine print revealing the truth is insufficient to dispel that 

deception.” See Ebner, 838 F.3d at 966. However, the front 

label must be unambiguously deceptive for a defendant to be 

precluded from insisting that the back label be considered 

together with the front label. See id. (considering the rest of 

the product’s packaging when there was “no deceptive act to 

be dispelled” on the front).

In Williams v. Gerber Products, we held that the back 

ingredient label on Gerber’s “Fruit Juice Snacks” could not 

cure the misleading nature of the front and side of the 

package. 552 F.3d at 939. The front label of Gerber’s fruit 

juice snacks contained the phrase “fruit juice snacks,” 

pictures of fruits, and the side label stated that the product 

was made “with real fruit juice and other all natural 

ingredients.” Id. at 936. However, when consumers turned 

the package over, they would discover that the product did 

not contain juice from any of the fruits pictured on the front 

and that the first two ingredients listed, showing their 

prominent role in the manufacturing of the product, were 

corn syrup and sugar. Id. We explained that the purpose of 

the ingredients list should be to confirm the representations 

on the front or other parts of a package. Id. at 939–40. We 

stated: “We do not think that the FDA requires an ingredient 

list so that manufacturers can mislead consumers and then 

rely on the ingredient list to correct those misinterpretations 

and provide a shield for liability for the deception. Instead, 

PUBLIC 

DE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 12 o
MCGINITY V. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. 11

reasonable consumers expect that the ingredient list contains 

more detailed information about the product that confirms

other representations on the packaging.” Id. (emphasis 

added).

Here, the front label containing the words “Nature 

Fusion” is not misleading—rather, it is ambiguous.2 Unlike 

a label declaring that a product is “100% natural” or “all 

natural,” the front “Nature Fusion” label does not promise 

that the product is wholly natural. Although the front label 

represents that something about the product bears a 

relationship to nature, the front label does not make any 

affirmative promise about what proportion of the ingredients

are natural. Instead, as the parties point out, “Nature Fusion” 

could mean any of a number of things: that the products are 

made with a mixture of natural and synthetic ingredients, 

that the products are made with a mixture of different natural 

ingredients, or something else entirely.

We hold that when, as here, a front label is ambiguous, 

the ambiguity can be resolved by reference to the back label. 

In addition to the ingredient lists, the back labels of the 

Nature Fusion shampoo and conditioner contain the phrases 

“Smoothness Inspired by Nature” and “NatureFusion® 

Smoothing System With Avocado Oil.” Upon seeing the 

back labels, it would be clear to a reasonable consumer that 

the avocado oil is the natural ingredient emphasized in

P&G’s labeling and marketing. The ingredients list, which 

McGinity alleges includes many ingredients that are 

synthetic and that a reasonable consumer would not think are 

2 The image of the avocado on a green leaf is truthful because the 

products do contain avocado oil. The back label ingredient list thus 

“confirms” the avocado image on the front label. See Williams, 552 F.3d 

at 939-40.

PUBLIC 

DE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 13 o
12 MCGINITY V. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO.

natural, clarifies that the rest of the ingredients are artificial

and that the products thus contain both natural and synthetic 

ingredients.

B. The consumer survey

McGinity relies heavily on the results of the consumer 

survey that his counsel had commissioned from a third party. 

Although we accept the allegations concerning the survey as 

true at this stage of litigation, the survey is not particularly 

instructive or helpful to us in deciding this case.

The consumer survey in Becerra v. Dr Pepper/Seven Up, 

Inc. was similarly unhelpful. 945 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2019). 

In Becerra, the survey concerned consumers’ understanding 

of the word “diet” in the context of Diet Dr. Pepper soda 

products. Id. at 1230. Becerra alleged that the survey in that 

case showed that “consumers expect a diet soft drink to 

either help them lose weight, or help maintain or not affect 

their weight.” Id. at 1230. However, we agreed with the 

district court that it was difficult to tell what questions were 

asked in the survey. Id. at 1230–31. Because the survey did 

not adequately address the crux of the issue (whether the 

reasonable consumer would understand the word “diet” in 

the context of Diet Dr. Pepper as a relative claim about the 

calorie or sugar content), we held that the survey did not

“make plausible the allegation that reasonable consumers are 

misled by the term ‘diet.’” Id. at 1231.

Here, the survey participants did not have access to the 

back label of the products. This omission to a degree

undermines the extent to which we can fairly rely on the 

survey results as being instructive of how the “reasonable 

consumer” understands the phrase “Nature Fusion” in the 

context of the products. As in Becerra, the survey here does 

not adequately address the primary question in this case. 

PUBLIC 

DE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 14 o
MCGINITY V. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. 13

Rather than demonstrating that the phrase “Nature 

Fusion” is misleading, the survey results confirm that it is 

ambiguous. Looking only at the front label, survey 

respondents were split nearly 50/50 on the question of 

whether the products contain a mixture of natural and nonnatural ingredients, or if they instead contain all or 

substantially all natural ingredients. Given that ambiguity, 

the survey is not informative as to whether the labeling of 

the products is misleading as a whole. Had the survey 

participants had access to the products’ back labels, they 

would have had an immediate answer to this question—they 

could see that the products contain avocado oil, a natural 

ingredient, as well as many synthetic ingredients. Although 

a back label cannot contradict deceptive statements made on 

the front label, the back label can be used to interpret what 

is conveyed by the labeling when the front label is 

ambiguous, as here. With the entire product in hand, we 

conclude, no reasonable consumer would think that the 

products are either completely or substantially natural. The 

survey results do not make plausible the allegation that the 

phrase “Nature Fusion” is misleading.

As shown by both Becerra and this case, it is important 

that potential or current litigants draft questions for 

consumer surveys with utmost care. Although the particular 

survey proved noninformative in the context of this case and 

the results of the survey, consumer surveys may well be 

relevant and helpful in other cases. “Consumer surveys offer 

opportunities for the court ... to see current consumer 

understandings of [] products as well as identify points of 

ambiguity, confusion, or blatant falsity amongst the 

labeling.” Jessica Guarino et. al., What the Judge Ate for 

Breakfast: Reasonable Consumer Challenges in Misleading 

PUBLIC 

DE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 15 o
14 MCGINITY V. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO.

Food Labeling Claims, 35 Loy. Consumer L. Rev. 82, 135

(2023).

IV. CONCLUSION

We affirm the decision of the district court dismissing 

McGinity’s claims for failure to state a claim under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

AFFIRMED.

GOULD, Circuit Judge, joined by BERZON, Circuit Judge, 

concurring:

Although we hold that McGinity has not successfully 

shown that P&G’s “Nature Fusion” labeling is deceptive as 

a matter of law, I write separately to express my view that 

P&G’s labeling nonetheless resembles a concerning practice 

known as “greenwashing.” Greenwashing refers to “a set of 

deceptive marketing practices in which an entity publicly 

misrepresents or exaggerates the positive environmental 

impact or attributes of a product[.]” Amanda Shanor & 

Sarah E. Light, Greenwashing and the First Amendment, 

122 Colum. L. Rev. 2033, 2037 (2022); see also id. at 2056–

57. The practice of greenwashing has resulted from the 

increasing number of American consumers who want to buy 

environmentally friendly, or “green,” products. See 16 

C.F.R. § 260.1 (“the Green Guides”). 

Greenwashing is not limited to environmental effects 

and is also used to describe the misleading or false labeling 

PUBLIC 

DE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 16 o
MCGINITY V. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO. 15

of a wide range of consumer products.1 For example, the 

practice of greenwashing also affects “the way consumers 

buy cosmetic and personal products.” Alexa Riccolo, The 

Lack of Regulation in Preventing Greenwashing of 

Cosmetics in the U.S., 47 J. Legis. 120, 122 (2021). In the 

context of cosmetics and personal care products (e.g., 

shampoos and conditioners), the term is used to describe 

products that have “natural” labeling “but actually contain 

chemicals[.]” Id.

The Federal Trade Commission issued the Green Guides 

to help companies avoid making misleading environmental 

claims. The Green Guides discourage marketers from 

making broad environmental benefit claims like “green” or 

“eco-friendly” because they are “difficult to interpret and 

likely convey a wide range of meanings.” See 16 C.F.R.

§ 260.4. The Green Guides also state that companies 

“should not imply that any specific benefit is significant if it 

is, in fact, negligible.” 16 C.F.R. § 260.4(c). While the 

Green Guides do not explicitly comment on use of the words 

“nature” or “natural,” they give general principles that all 

marketers can use to avoid deceiving consumers 

unintentionally or from mere negligence. See, e.g., 16 

1 The far-reach of greenwashing is well-illustrated in “The Six Sins of 

Greenwashing,” an influential 2007 study published by TerraChoice 

Environmental Marketing. In this study, TerraChoice sent research 

teams to “big box” stores to record every product-based human health or 

environmental claim they observed. TerraChoice identified over 50 

product categories in which false or misleading claims were found, 

including everything from televisions, to household cleaning products, 

to personal care products such as shampoo and conditioner. 

TerraChoice, The “Six Sins of Greenwashing”: A Study of 

Environmental Claims in North American Consumer Markets 9 (2007), 

https://perma.cc/7BTD-Z2U7.

PUBLIC 

DE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 17 o
16 MCGINITY V. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE CO.

C.F.R. §§ 260.9 (addressing claims that a product is “free 

of” specified substances or chemicals), 260.10 (addressing 

claims that a product is “non-toxic”).

Here, although there is only one natural ingredient in the 

products, the word “Nature” is in bold, capitalized text on 

the front labels and is one of the largest words on the bottles, 

second only to the brand name, “Pantene.” As a consumer 

hoping to purchase natural personal care products, McGinity 

was drawn to the emphasis on “Nature” and thought that the 

labeling meant that the products were “of, by, and from 

‘Nature.’” McGinity alleges that “Nature Fusion” conveyed 

to him that the products were made of predominantly natural 

ingredients when they were, in fact, made of almost entirely 

synthetic ingredients. The phrase “Nature Fusion” may be 

more ambiguous and less deceptive than “green” or “ecofriendly,” but I still note how the use of such a phrase sounds 

alarm bells similar to those sounded in the Green Guides.

PUBLIC 

DE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 18 o
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on June 30, 2023, I caused the foregoing document to be filed 

electronically using the FTC’s E-Filing system, which will send notification of such filing to: 

April Tabor 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Suite CC-5610 

Washington, DC 20580 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 

I further certify that on June 30, 2023, I caused the foregoing document to be served via 

email to: 

Roberto Anguizola 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: ranguizola@ftc.gov 

Tel: (202) 326-3284 

Rebecca Plett 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: rplett@ftc.gov 

Tel: (202) 326-3664 

James Evans 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: jevans1@ftc.gov 

Tel: (202) 326-2026 

Counsel Supporting the Complaint 

Sara Tonnesen 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20580 

Email: stonnesen@ftc.gov 

Tel: (202) 326-2879 

April Tabor 

Office of the Secretary 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Suite CC-5610 

Washington, DC 20580 

ElectronicFilings@ftc.gov 

The Honorable D. Michael Chappell 

Administrative Law Judge 

600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. H-110 

Washington, DC 20580 

Dated: June 30, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Derek Woodman 

Derek Woodman 

Counsel for Intuit Inc.

PUBLIC FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION | OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY | FILED 06/30/2023 OSCAR NO. 608095 -PAGE Page 19 of 19 * PUBLIC *