A Florida federal court has denied Clarins’ motion to dismiss in a case alleging that the company deceptively advertises its products by basing its campaigns on flawed scientific studies; the court also refused to deny class certification, saying that the issue would be better handled when a motion for class certification is filed. Garcia v. Clarins USA Inc., No. 14-21249 (U.S. Dist. Ct., S.D. Fla., order entered September 4, 2014). The court limited the claims, however, to the products the plaintiff purchased—Vital Light Night Revitalizing Anti- Ageing Cream and Body Life Cellulite Control, each for $90—finding that she could not show injury as to products she had not purchased and thus lacked standing.

The plaintiff alleged that the “clinical” and “consumer” tests which Clarins cited in its advertising were manipulated to achieve the desired results, and the court allowed her false and misleading advertising claim to proceed because the plaintiff had argued that she relied on the advertising in purchasing the products. The court further denied the motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims of unjust enrichment and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, but it dismissed with leave to amend her breach of express warranty claim because she failed to notify the seller of the breach as required by Florida law.