The cosmetics and private care sector continues to face authorized stress over product labeling tied to topical collagen product claims. As beforehand reported by CosmeticsDesign US in October 2024, a wave of sophistication actions has put phrases like “vegan collagen” beneath the microscope, significantly after they counsel parity with animal-derived collagen.
“No court docket has held that the phrase ‘vegan collagen’ is inherently deceptive,” Shawn Collins, companion at Stradling Legislation, informed CosmeticsDesign US. “However manufacturers must be cautious to not counsel that their vegan collagen performs the identical as naturally occurring collagen until they will substantiate that.”
Current selections from the Southern District of New York have formed how these instances are being evaluated, however they haven’t created definitive protected harbors. Collins pointed to Nguyen v. Algenist LLC as one instance the place a court docket dismissed claims outright.
“The Court docket held that the ‘Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that vegan collagen is essentially ineffective, alone or within the context of the Merchandise’ formulation,’” he defined. “That case was dismissed with out depart to amend, which is critical.”
Nevertheless, the Nguyen ruling doesn’t insulate all advertising and marketing utilizing the time period. In distinction, in Lopez v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., the court docket discovered it believable {that a} client may interpret “COLLAGEN MOISTURE FILLER” as implying equivalence to animal collagen.
“That case moved ahead particularly as a result of the product’s labeling and presentation prompt related advantages to actual collagen,” Collins stated. “That’s the place the chance lies, implying equivalency with out the science.”
Contextual interpretation nonetheless missing in judicial selections
Collins famous that current comparisons have been drawn between “vegan collagen” and phrases like “almond milk” or “vegan burger,” that are phrases which have, in different contexts, been upheld by courts as a consequence of client understanding. Nevertheless, he remained skeptical that this argument has gained traction in cosmetics litigation.
“No court docket has embraced this contextual, common sense interpretation but, a minimum of not in a printed opinion,” he defined. “But it surely’s an argument I’ll proceed to boost as a result of it highlights the fallacy in assuming the time period alone is deceptive.”
Till such reasoning is codified in precedent, he suggested business stakeholders to take a conservative strategy to claims which may be interpreted as well being or performance-based.
Substantiation and disclaimers: Present greatest practices
As Collins defined, the authorized burden stays with the producer to supply readability and substantiation, significantly in claims tied to collagen efficacy, anti-aging advantages, or pores and skin efficiency.
“The largest lesson is that manufacturers shouldn’t be utilizing wording, footage, or any graphics in reference to ‘vegan collagen’ that implies or implies it’s as efficient as actual collagen, until they’ve the science and information to again that up,” he stated.
In sensible phrases, this implies modifying each the label and promotional content material to replicate limitations or make clear broader formulations.
“Manufacturers simply want to verify they’re giving customers the complete image,” he clarified. “If solely sure elements are pure, say that, [and] if the product makes use of vegan collagen as one half of a bigger formulation, say that too.”
He additional beneficial using asterisked clarifiers as an efficient mechanism for managing these nuances, significantly with “phrases like ‘vegan collagen’ or ‘all pure’ when there’s extra context,” which might higher talk messaging to the buyer. He cited the problems seen in Gunaratna v. Dennis Gross, the place the declare itself wasn’t discovered to be deceptive, however the lack of element and transparency created authorized vulnerability, for instance the place this technique could possibly be efficient.
Increasing authorized publicity past collagen
Litigation will not be restricted to collagen-related phrases, he added. As client demand continues to develop round “clear,” “plant-based,” and “non-toxic” magnificence, so does the potential consideration from plaintiffs’ attorneys.
“I’ve seen an elevated quantity of litigation over the previous yr associated to phrases like ‘plant-based,’ ‘clear,’ ‘light and nourishing,’ ‘soothing,’ and ‘worry-free,’” Collins stated. “And I anticipate this development to proceed.”
He famous that these phrases typically carry implied efficiency or security claims that, with out substantiation or context, can violate client safety requirements.
“Plaintiffs’ attorneys see these phrases as revenue drivers,” he added. “They usually’re focusing on the businesses profiting most.”
Strategic readability now can mitigate later litigation dangers
For manufacturers and suppliers navigating evolving client expectations and ESG-aligned advertising and marketing, the precedence is to make sure product claims are each factually correct and legally sturdy, he concluded.
“On the finish of the day, it’s not about avoiding phrases like ‘vegan collagen,’” stated Collins. “It’s about ensuring that whenever you use them, you’re telling the entire reality.”
