CASE NAME: Merewhuader v. Tom’s of Maine, Inc.
CASE NO. 2:26-cv-7263
JURISDICTION: United States District Court, Central District of California
FILED ON: July 2, 2026
CLASS DEFINITION: All persons in the United States who purchased the product for personal or household use during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint through the date of class notification

SUMMARY:
According to the complaint, Tom’s of Maine, Inc. falsely markets its deodorant product as “unscented,” misleading consumers into believing it is free of fragrance. The lawsuit alleges that despite this labeling, the product contains ingredients that function as fragrance, specifically a type of lemongrass oil. The plaintiff claims that this misrepresentation is material to consumers, particularly those seeking fragrance-free products due to sensitivities or health concerns. As a result, consumers allegedly paid a premium for a product that did not meet their expectations, causing economic harm.

ALLEGATIONS:
The lawsuit alleges that Tom’s manufactures and sells a deodorant prominently labeled as “unscented,” a representation that reasonable consumers understand to mean the product contains no fragrance. However, the complaint claims that the product actually includes Cymbopogon flexuosus oil, a form of lemongrass oil known for its distinct citrus scent, making the product scented rather than fragrance-free.

According to the complaint, Tom’s is aware of consumer demand for unscented or fragrance-free personal care products, particularly among individuals with skin sensitivities, allergies, or concerns about potential health effects of fragrance ingredients. The lawsuit cites research and consumer trends indicating that many consumers actively seek out unscented products to avoid irritation or adverse reactions.

The plaintiff alleges that Tom’s capitalized on this demand by labeling its deodorant as “unscented” while including fragrance components. The complaint further claims that the company reinforces this representation through marketing statements suggesting the product is suitable for those seeking a “fragrance-free experience.”

Additionally, the lawsuit contends that the presence of Cymbopogon oil is not adequately disclosed in a way that would inform reasonable consumers. While the ingredient may appear in fine-print ingredient lists or in an online fragrance disclosure, the complaint alleges that most consumers do not review these disclosures prior to purchase, and even if they did, they would not recognize the ingredient as a fragrance.

The complaint also claims that the product’s labeling changes, including statements such as “no artificial fragrance,” do not resolve the alleged deception. Instead, these statements may reinforce consumer belief that the product is entirely free of fragrance, according to the lawsuit.

The named plaintiff alleges that he purchased the deodorant multiple times believing it was fragrance-free and relied on the “unscented” label when making his purchasing decision. He claims he would not have purchased the product, or would have paid less for it, had he known it contained fragrance.

The lawsuit further alleges that consumers suffered economic injury because the product was sold at a premium price based on the allegedly misleading “unscented” representation. The plaintiff claims that the product was worth less than what consumers paid and that Tom’s was unjustly enriched by these sales.

Based on these allegations, the complaint asserts claims including violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as breach of warranties and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief to stop the alleged misleading practices, and other remedies.