CASE NAME: Kaira Brown v. DLC Laboratories, Inc.
CASE NO.: 1:26-cv-02658
JURISDICTION: United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
FILED ON: May 4, 2026
CLASS DEFINITION: All persons in New York who purchased De La Cruz Rose Water Body Mist or De La Cruz Lavender Water Body Mist during the applicable statute of limitations period.

SUMMARY:
DLC Laboratories, Inc. is facing a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that it falsely markets its De La Cruz Rose Water Body Mist and Lavender Water Body Mist as “Free of Alcohol.” The lawsuit claims that despite this front-label representation, the products contain phenoxyethanol, which is identified as an ethyl alcohol. The plaintiff alleges that consumers rely on “alcohol-free” claims when purchasing personal care products due to concerns about skin irritation and dryness. As a result, the complaint asserts that consumers were misled into purchasing the products and paying a premium price under false pretenses.

ALLEGATIONS:
The lawsuit alleges that DLC Laboratories, Inc. engaged in deceptive and misleading labeling practices by prominently displaying “Free of Alcohol” on the front of its body mist products. According to the complaint, reasonable consumers interpret this representation to mean that the products contain no alcohol of any kind. However, the plaintiff claims that the products contain phenoxyethanol, which is chemically classified as an alcohol due to its structure and properties.

The complaint further alleges that this ingredient contradicts the “Free of Alcohol” claim and renders the labeling false and misleading. According to the lawsuit, phenoxyethanol is commonly used as a preservative in cosmetic products and contains a hydroxyl group characteristic of alcohol compounds. The plaintiff contends that consumers would not be aware of this technical classification and would rely instead on the clear and unqualified front-label representation.

Additionally, the lawsuit asserts that DLC Laboratories intentionally used the “Free of Alcohol” claim to appeal to consumers who seek alcohol-free personal care products. According to the complaint, many consumers avoid alcohol-based ingredients due to concerns about skin sensitivity, dryness, or irritation. The plaintiff claims that this representation is material to purchasing decisions and that consumers are willing to pay more for products marketed as alcohol-free.

The complaint also alleges that the ingredient list on the back of the product does not cure the misleading nature of the front label. According to the lawsuit, consumers are not expected to scrutinize ingredient lists to correct potentially deceptive front-label claims. As a result, the plaintiff contends that the labeling creates a false impression that the products are entirely free of alcohol.

The plaintiff further claims that she and other class members relied on the “Free of Alcohol” representation when purchasing the products and would not have done so, or would have paid less, had they known the truth. The complaint alleges that this reliance resulted in economic harm, including paying a price premium for products that did not meet their expectations.

Based on these allegations, the lawsuit brings claims under New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 for deceptive acts and false advertising, as well as claims for breach of express warranty and fraud. The plaintiff seeks monetary damages, injunctive relief, and other remedies on behalf of herself and similarly situated consumers.