CASE NAME: Greenbach v. Babo Botanicals Inc.
CASE NO.: 5:26-cv-03241
JURISDICTION: United States District Court for the Northern District of California
FILED ON: April 16, 2026
CLASS DEFINITION: All persons in the United States who purchased Babo Botanicals products during the applicable statutory period, with subclasses including California and multi-state consumers.

SUMMARY:
According to the complaint , Babo Botanicals Inc. is accused of misleading consumers by marketing its bath and personal care products as “plant-based” and natural, despite allegedly containing synthetic and artificial ingredients. The plaintiff claims that these representations led consumers to believe the products were composed exclusively of natural ingredients, influencing purchasing decisions and allowing the company to charge a premium.

ALLEGATIONS:
The lawsuit alleges that Babo Botanicals manufactures and sells a range of bath and cosmetic products, including its Moisturizing Oat & Calendula Shampoo & Wash, which are marketed with plant-themed imagery and labeled as “made with plant-based ingredients.” As shown on the product packaging image on page 8 of the complaint, the branding prominently features botanical visuals and messaging that suggest a natural composition.

According to the complaint, these representations are deceptive because the products allegedly contain multiple synthetic and artificial ingredients. The plaintiff points to ingredients listed on the back label, including citric acid, sodium C14-16 olefin sulfonate, cocamidopropyl betaine, sodium lauroyl methyl isethionate, sodium methyl cocoyl taurate, and ethylhexylglycerin. The lawsuit asserts that these substances are manufactured through chemical processes and therefore contradict the impression that the products are entirely plant-based.

The complaint further alleges that Babo Botanicals reinforces these claims through online marketing, including product listings that describe the formulas as “plant-based & hypoallergenic” and highlight the inclusion of numerous plant-derived ingredients. The plaintiff contends that these statements would lead a reasonable consumer to believe the products contain only natural ingredients and exclude synthetic substances.

A significant portion of the complaint focuses on citric acid, which it alleges is not naturally derived in commercial applications but instead produced through industrial fermentation using mold (Aspergillus niger) and chemical processing. The complaint references regulatory guidance and scientific literature to support the claim that commercially produced citric acid is synthetic. It also describes the manufacturing process in detail, including the use of chemical solvents and fermentation methods, and includes diagrams and schematics—such as the manufacturing process illustration on page 12—showing the industrial production steps.

The plaintiff alleges that consumers, including herself, rely on labeling claims when purchasing personal care products, particularly when seeking natural or plant-based options. She claims that she purchased the product based on these representations and would not have done so, or would have paid less, had she known the true composition.

The lawsuit asserts that the defendant engaged in “greenwashing,” a practice of marketing products as environmentally friendly or natural despite containing synthetic ingredients. It further claims that this conduct violates Federal Trade Commission guidance, which requires that companies substantiate claims such as “natural” or “plant-based” to reflect consumer expectations.

On behalf of a nationwide class and multiple subclasses, the plaintiff brings claims under California consumer protection laws, including the Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, as well as claims for breach of express and implied warranties, negligent and intentional misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of other state consumer protection statutes.

The plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and corrective advertising. Specifically, the lawsuit requests that the court require the defendant to cease using allegedly misleading labeling and marketing practices and to compensate consumers for the alleged price premium paid due to the misrepresentations.

At the core of the case is whether labeling products as “plant-based” while including synthetic ingredients constitutes a materially misleading practice that deceives reasonable consumers.

Please tell us what you think about this complaint.