A group of California trial lawyers have asked a court to allow them to get paid about $500,000 in exchange for securing a settlement to prohibit ChapStick-brand lip balm products from being labeled "100% Natural."
On July 24, attorneys with the Clarkson Law Firm P.C., of Malibu, and Moon Law APC, of Palo Alto, filed a motion in Oakland federal court seeking approval of their settlement deal.
The proposed settlement with defendant pharmaceutical products company GlaxoSmithKline would include no payment of any kind to consumers who the lawsuit claims were misled into purchasing the products.
Ryan Clarkson
| Superlawyers
"Defendant's agreement to stop using the '100% Natural' and '100% Naturally Sourced Ingredients' on the Products' labels and marketing materials represents a positive outcome for the Class, as it will protect consumers by minimizing the risk of consumer confusion and/or deception," the lawyers wrote in their motion for settlement.
Under the deal, the lawyers are requesting attorney fees of $495,000.
They are also requesting a $5,000 "service award" for the named plaintiff in the case, identified as Lisa N. Moore, of Los Angeles County. According to court documents, she had previously lived in San Francisco County, as well.
The lawsuit dates back to 2020, when the lawyers from the Clarkson and Moon firms filed suit on behalf of Moore and potentially tens of thousands of other potential plaintiff class members against GSK.
The lawsuit accused GSK of violating California consumer protection and fraud laws by allegedly wrongly labeling some of their ChapStick products as being "100% Natural" or containing "100% Naturally Sourced Ingredients."
The lawsuit claims the labeling is allegedly false, as the products also contain a variety of "non-natural, synthetic, and/or artificial ingredients," allegedly including an artificial compound manufacturer by hydrolizing coconut oil, known as caprylic triglycerides; caprylol glycerin; a dye known as carmine; the preservative citric acid; hydogenated soybean oil; and artificial flavors and fragrances, among other allegedly non-natural or artificial ingredients.
The plaintiffs sought an order directing GSK to pay unspecified statutory and other money damages.
In early 2024, the case was dealt a significant blow in court, when U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, issued a split ruling that allowed the case to move forward as a class action, but blocked the plaintiffs from seeking a payout of damages from GSK under consumer protection claims.
In that ruling, the judge said the plaintiffs may be able to prove consumers were misled concerning the "all-natural" nature of the ChapStick products. But the judge said the plaintiffs had not presented allowable, persuasive evidence that consumers had actually paid more than they otherwise would have for the products.
In the Jan. 30 ruling, Judge White particularly took issue with a study presented by plaintiffs from expert witness Dr. Michael Dennis. He agreed with GSK's lawyers that Dennis' study included too many problematic statements, which left the study "incapable of calculating a reliable price premium."
Judge White had earlier denied the plaintiffs to proceed with nationwide class action claims, limiting the case entirely to potential California plaintiffs under Californa law.
According to the settlement motion, the deal was the result of talks that began about two months after Judge White denied the plaintiffs the chance to seek money damages on behalf of allegedly misled consumers.
The plaintiffs' lawyers defended their attorney fee request, despite winning no money for the class.
They said the deal secures the overarching objective of the lawsuit, which is to secure a court order requiring GSK to remove the "100% Natural" claims from their ChapStick products.
And the motion for settlement asserts the deal "carefully preserves" the ability of individual consumers to try again in court to secure a payout in the future, if desired.
They said the settlement should allow the court to consider the plaintiffs the "prevailing party" in the legal action, meaning they should be entitled to payment of attorney fees from the defendant, GSK.
They asserted their fee request was "reasonable" and represented a significant "deduction" of more than $200,000 from what they could have requested.
According to the settlement motion, GSK did not oppose the fee request.
Plaintiffs have been represented by attorneys Ryan J. Clarkson, Bahar Sodaify and Alan Gudino, of the Clarkson firm; and Christopher D. Moon and Kevin O. Moon, of the Moon firm.
GSK has been represented by attorneys Matthew F. Williams, Christina G. Sarchio and Jacqueline Harrington, of the firm of Dechert LLP, of San Francisco, New York and Washington, D.C.