2025 Court Decisions That May Impact The Cosmetics And Personal Care Industries

1. Update on Implied Preemption Following Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc.

In 2025, we shared information in the Mid-Year 2025 Consumer Compass on Davidson v. Sprout Foods, Inc., 106 F.4th 842 (9th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1922, 221 L. Ed. 2d 663 (2025), where the Ninth Circuit held that state law food-labeling claims seeking to privately enforce the Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law (Sherman Law) — California's analogue to the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) — were not impliedly preempted. The Ninth Circuit has since limited Davidson's applicability, holding in Bubak v. Golo, LLC, No. 24-492, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 26524 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2025), that claims under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL) are preempted because they require litigating the alleged underlying FDCA violation.

The Bubak court did not overrule Davidson. Instead, it distinguished Davidson by stating that the alleged Sherman Law violations there were "plain," while the alleged violations at issue in Bubak required "litigating questions that are reserved for the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)]." Id. at *4-*5.

Judge Consuelo Callahan, in her concurring opinion, took issue with this position. In an opinion twice as long as the majority's, Judge Callahan detailed all the similarities between the two cases and shared her belief that Davidson should be overruled. She reasoned that even if Davidson displayed a "plain" Sherman law violation, the FDCA "does not carve out a 'plain violation' exception to its bar on private enforcement." Id. at *7-*8. She further disagreed with the conclusion that some FDCA violations involve litigating questions reserved for the FDA, while others do not. Id. at *8. She opined that both cases required the court to decide whether defendants had violated federal regulations. Id. at *8-*9. The two cases could be distinguished on the basis that some of the Sherman Law claims in Davidson predated and existed independently from the FDCA, while in Bubak, all the alleged violations "exist[ed] solely by virtue of the FDCA." Id. at *11. In short, in Judge Callahan's view, the FDCA prohibits private enforcement of any state law that incorporates the FDCA." Id. at *16.

Davidson conflicts with the holdings of several other circuits. See, e.g., DiCroce v. McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, 82 F.4th 35, 41 (1st Cir. 2023), cert. denied, 144 S. Ct. 1382, 218 L. Ed. 2d 443 (2024) (affirming dismissal and holding federal law preempts state law claims based on Massachusetts state law that specifically incorporated FDCA food labeling regulations). Outside the Ninth Circuit, no cases apply Davidson to consumer claims.

2. Prop 65 TiO2 Warning Permanently Enjoined on First Amendment Grounds

On Aug. 11, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued a permanent injunction against California's Proposition 65 (Prop 65) warning requirement for titanium dioxide in cosmetics and personal care products. Personal Care Prods. Council v. Bonta, 799 F. Supp. 3d 1075 (E.D. Cal. 2025). The court held that the required warnings violated the First Amendment because they were neither "purely factual" nor "uncontroversial." Specifically, the required warning signaled to consumers that titanium dioxide in cosmetics and personal care products increases cancer risk. The court found this to be misleading, as no scientific consensus supports that conclusion. Similarly, the lack of scientific consensus renders that conclusion controversial. Accordingly, the court ruled that Prop 65's required warning qualified as compelled speech and violated the First Amendment.

The Eastern District of California held similarly earlier this year, when it ruled that the Prop 65 warning for acrylamide in foods violated the First Amendment.

3. Greenwashing Claims

Consumer challenges to "natural" and "naturally derived" product claims continue to test the limits of consumer protection laws. Two recent decisions— McWhorter v. P&G, No. 24-cv-00806, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59479 (N.D. Cal Mar. 28, 2025 and Kent v. Conopco, Inc., No. 25-cv-03660, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 232973 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 26, 2025— illustrate how courts have decided to interpret these claims, particularly when plaintiffs allege misleading or incomplete ingredient disclosures.

In McWhorter, plaintiffs challenged "natural source ingredient" claims on shampoo and conditioner products. The court held the claims — which were accompanied by an asterisk — were ambiguous such that a reasonable consumer must review the back label for additional information about their meaning. Moreover, the asterisk signals to a reasonable consumer that they must look to other parts of the product label to understand the full explanation of the label's statements. Because the back label sufficiently explained what the company meant by "naturally derived ingredients," plaintiffs failed to establish that the product labels were false or misleading. The court denied leave to amend.

In Kent, plaintiffs challenged claims that shampoos, conditioners, and other bath products were "X% naturally derived." The court held that describing products as "X% naturally derived," acts as a specific representation as to the percentage of each product that is non-synthetic and is unambiguous. As such, the court held a consumer need not review the information on the back label. The court further found that the alleged falsity of the statement was sufficiently alleged to survive dismissal on the pleadings.

A motion to stay Kent pending the Ninth Circuit's resolution of McWhorter (currently on appeal) is pending.

4. Alleged Health Risk Litigation

Talc litigation remains substantial, despite FDA tests showing no asbestos in cosmetics, with several multi-million-dollar jury verdicts in state courts in 2025. Several of these verdicts may be appealed. In the meantime, the litigation shows no signs of slowing down, with new cases being filed regularly in state courts across the country, and an uptick in multidistrict litigation (MDL) filings in 2025, with over 400 new cases filed. The FDA, for its part, withdrew its proposed rule relating to testing cosmetic products containing talc for asbestos.

Hair relaxer-focused litigation has also continued to grow, with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas having launched a new mass tort program for hair relaxer lawsuits in June of 2025, and new cases filed in the existing mass torts pending in Georgia, Illinois, and New York, as well as in the MDL. Plaintiffs in many of the newer cases include cosmetologists and stylists who allege work-related exposure, rather than consumers alleging direct personal use. In Burroughs v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 2024 Ga. State LEXIS 858 (Apr. 17, 2024), the Georgia Supreme Court ruled that the state's statute of repose — which states actions cannot be brought after 10 years from date of first sale or consumption — resets with each new purchase but noted that the plaintiffs have the ultimate burden of proving the products sold within the 10-year window caused their injury.

In 2026, the hair relaxer MDL will delve deeper into expert testimony: there was a science day on January 8, 2026, and expert discovery is scheduled to be completed before the end of the year. With respect to the coordinated proceedings in state courts, the Illinois proceeding appears poised to be the first one reaching trial.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.