CASE NAME: Jasmine Rojas v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation
CASE NO.: 1:26-cv-1331
JURISDICTION: United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
FILED ON: March 6, 2026

CLASS DEFINITION: All consumers who purchased the product in the State of New York during the relevant statute of limitations period.

SUMMARY:
According to the complaint, Kimberly-Clark Corporation falsely marketed its Huggies Little Movers diapers as “hypoallergenic” and suitable for sensitive skin despite allegedly containing ingredients that may cause allergic reactions or skin irritation in infants. The lawsuit alleges that consumers reasonably interpret the term “hypoallergenic” to mean that a product is unlikely to cause allergic reactions or skin irritation. Plaintiff Jasmine Rojas claims she purchased the diapers specifically because they were marketed as hypoallergenic for her child who suffers from eczema. The complaint alleges that the diapers contain the same or similar ingredients as non-hypoallergenic versions of the product and that parents have reported rashes, burns, and other skin irritations associated with their use. The plaintiff claims that consumers would not have purchased the diapers, or would have paid less for them, had they known that the “hypoallergenic” representation was allegedly misleading.

ALLEGATIONS:
According to the complaint, Kimberly-Clark markets and sells Huggies Little Movers diapers throughout the United States, including in New York, and promotes the product as “hypoallergenic,” “made for sensitive skin,” and free from harsh irritants. The lawsuit alleges that these representations create the impression that the diapers are designed to minimize the risk of allergic reactions or skin irritation for babies with sensitive skin conditions.

The complaint asserts that consumers increasingly seek out hypoallergenic hygiene products because of growing awareness of skin sensitivities and conditions such as eczema. According to the lawsuit, the hypoallergenic label signals to consumers that a product is unlikely to cause allergic reactions. The plaintiff alleges that manufacturers use this representation to attract consumers who are willing to pay a premium for products marketed as safer or gentler for sensitive skin.

The lawsuit claims that the Huggies Little Movers diapers marketed as hypoallergenic allegedly contain ingredients that may cause skin irritation. According to the complaint, some parents have reported that their children developed rashes, burns, or other allergic reactions after using the diapers. The complaint also references consumer reviews and online comments in which parents describe redness, irritation, and strong chemical odors associated with the product.

According to the complaint, the diapers contain ingredients such as sodium polyacrylate, polypropylene, cellulose, hydrocarbon resin, spandex, titanium dioxide, and polyethylene, along with coloring agents. The lawsuit alleges that many of these ingredients also appear in other Huggies diaper products that are not labeled as hypoallergenic. The plaintiff claims that this similarity raises questions about what differentiates the hypoallergenic version from other versions of the product.

The complaint further alleges that the product may have undergone a formulation change reflected by a blue interior lining. According to the lawsuit, the chemical composition of this lining is within Kimberly-Clark’s exclusive knowledge. Some consumers reportedly observed a chemical smell associated with this lining and reported concerns that the diapers caused irritation or chemical-like burns on their children’s skin.

According to the plaintiff, reasonable consumers would not purchase diapers labeled as hypoallergenic if they knew the product allegedly contained ingredients that could irritate sensitive skin. The lawsuit alleges that parents seeking products safe for infants with skin conditions rely on such labeling when making purchasing decisions.

The complaint also alleges that Kimberly-Clark’s marketing allowed it to charge a higher price for the diapers by promoting them as hypoallergenic. According to the lawsuit, the labeling and advertising were materially misleading because consumers allegedly believed the diapers were free from ingredients that could cause allergic reactions.

Plaintiff Jasmine Rojas claims she purchased the diapers multiple times through online retailers because of the hypoallergenic representation and because her child suffers from eczema. According to the complaint, she would not have purchased the product or would have paid less for it had she known that the hypoallergenic claim was allegedly misleading.

The lawsuit asserts violations of New York consumer protection laws, including New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350, which prohibit deceptive business practices and false advertising. The plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, and other relief on behalf of herself and the proposed class.