CASE NAME: Tara Amado v. Kenvue Brands, LLC
CASE NO.: 3:26-cv-04204
JURISDICTION: United States District Court for the Northern District of California
FILED ON: May 7, 2026
CLASS DEFINITION: All persons in California and throughout the United States who purchased Aveeno Baby Daily Moisture Wash & Shampoo during the applicable statute of limitations period.

SUMMARY:
Kenvue Brands, LLC was named in a class action lawsuit alleging that it falsely markets its Aveeno Baby Daily Moisture Wash & Shampoo as “hypoallergenic.” The lawsuit claims that despite this representation, the product contains fragrance ingredients, including hidden components identified through testing as known allergens. The plaintiff alleges that consumers rely on “hypoallergenic” claims to avoid products that may trigger allergic reactions, and that the inclusion of such ingredients contradicts the product’s labeling, resulting in consumers being misled and paying a price premium.

ALLEGATIONS:
The complaint alleges that Kenvue prominently labels its Aveeno Baby Daily Moisture Wash & Shampoo as “hypoallergenic,” a term that reasonable consumers interpret to mean the product is specifically formulated to reduce the likelihood of allergic reactions. According to the lawsuit, this representation is material to consumers, particularly those with sensitive skin or concerns about allergens, and is displayed clearly on the product packaging to influence purchasing decisions.

However, the plaintiff contends that the product contains “fragrance,” an ingredient category widely recognized as a common source of allergens. The complaint explains that manufacturers are not required to disclose the individual chemical components of fragrances, leaving consumers unaware of potential hidden allergens within the formulation. As a result, consumers must rely on front-label claims such as “hypoallergenic” when making purchasing decisions.

According to the complaint, independent laboratory testing commissioned by the plaintiff identified the presence of d-Limonene and Linalool in the product—two substances recognized as common fragrance allergens by regulatory authorities. The lawsuit alleges that the inclusion of these ingredients directly contradicts the “hypoallergenic” claim, rendering the labeling false and misleading.

The complaint further alleges that reasonable consumers do not expect a product labeled as “hypoallergenic” to contain known allergens, particularly when those ingredients serve no functional purpose beyond fragrance. The plaintiff claims that consumers lack the ability to independently verify the presence of such hidden ingredients and are entitled to rely on the accuracy of product labeling without conducting scientific testing.

Additionally, the lawsuit asserts that Kenvue intentionally used the “hypoallergenic” label to capitalize on growing consumer demand for gentle and allergy-conscious personal care products. According to the complaint, this marketing strategy allowed the company to charge a premium price and gain a competitive advantage in the marketplace.

The plaintiff alleges that she and other class members relied on the “hypoallergenic” representation when purchasing the product and would not have done so, or would have paid less, had they known it contained known allergens. As a result, the complaint claims that consumers suffered economic harm, including paying more for a product that did not meet their expectations.

Based on these allegations, the lawsuit asserts claims for breach of express warranty, violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and other remedies on behalf of herself and similarly situated consumers.

Tell us what you think.