Housey v. Procter & Gamble Company ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------------------------------------X BELINDA HOUSEY, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, - against - MEMORANDUM AND ORDER 21 Civ. 2286 (NRB) PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant. ---------------------------------------X NAOMI REICE BUCHWALD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Plaintiff Belinda Housey brings this putative class action against defendant Procter & Gamble Company (“Procter & Gamble” or “P&G”), alleging that the defendant made false or deceptive statements regarding certain Procter & Gamble Crest® toothpastes that contain charcoal. Plaintiff alleges that Procter & Gamble’s representations that these toothpastes would provide “enamel safe whitening,” promote “healthier gums,” and “gently clean[]” are false because the inclusion of charcoal in the toothpastes renders the toothpastes incapable of providing these benefits. Presently before this Court is the defendant’s motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). For the following reasons, defendant’s motion is granted. I. Background A. Factual Background! Defendant Procter & Gamble is a multinational consumer goods corporation. FAC 23. Among its products are Crest® toothpastes, some of which contain charcoal. Id. @ 1. Plaintiff specifically identifies three of these toothpastes as containing deceptive statements on their packaging: “the Crest® 3D White Whitening Toothpaste with Charcoal” (hereinafter, the “3D White Charcoal Toothpaste”), the “Crest® 3D White Whitening Therapy - Charcoal with Hemp Seed Oil” toothpaste, and the “Crest® Gum Detoxify Charcoal Toothpaste,” (together, the “Charcoal Toothpastes”). Id. 3. Images of the external packaging that depict the claims that plaintiff challenges are included below: □□ ara ee ee a, iRccianle) U] elie) we □ ts1O}/2io) TUL a [oke = Tas (i) N= □□□ -1-7-Vol a Wy Yel = a OVO OYE SPA =e M20 RE □□ ait ha Que Winans Gis seg 4 a Ya a3 ty) ey TL cd me ag . ta a | Pare 1 The following facts are principally drawn from the operative complaint, ECF No. 21 (“FAC”). For the purposes of the Court’s ruling on the instant motion, the Court draws all reasonable inferences in plaintiff’s favor. See Koch v. Christie’s Int’1l PLC, 699 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 2012). Ci rest | 3DWHITE FLUORIDE ANTICAVITY TOOTHPASTE WHITENING THERAPY (co) a od NS $f charcoal & es with Pa @ HEMP SEED OIL Bs Gently Cleans & 3 Removes Stains*. 1 a ee atu) i) ERrae Bis Wahi : es oS ao Sirs pare ve □ □□ a | a = sonal eS fe 3 aa a. □□ ee) ENAMEL RENEWAL : ho qi ' Removes up to BD) AVAVA □ fl tl 90% of surface stains a ‘ STARTS WHITENING ag Weta □□ Vy. 48 AFTER 1BRUSH oi Yd cL aT iam Nan elas y a Cre i ey 5 meRemoves up to | yD VAY, we = Be Mego” Jol surface stains : oe ae eS TARTS WHITENING Pate ar ie Vihar (3 Be iso Fes 4 ER TERU Si tu) uy) ise Oe TFET i ne ry ee sit ; a i 23s PS a nM be i re ge 3 i 4 □ | Ci | 3 Uf Les ———— = P= KEM aS BD VAVA oe | 00% of sufface stain: STARTS WHITENING | he AFTER 1/BRUSH