“RoC exploits consumers’ perception of the benefits of retinol and consumers’ lack of knowledge about how retinol works by deceptively advertising and selling a rinse-off Retinol Correxion Deep Wrinkle Serum Cleanser that purports to deliver the commonly understood dermatologic benefits of retinol—but is rinsed off right away, therefore minimizing its contact time with the target organ, in this case the skin.”

💡 This quote establishes the central claim that RoC intentionally misleads consumers by marketing a product whose design prevents the key ingredient from working.

“Washing off retinol within seconds after application means the retinol will not and cannot provide the advertised benefits. Further, retinol is a relatively unstable chemical. It must be properly packaged, shipped, and stored, otherwise it loses its efficacy. RoC does not properly package, ship or store the subject retinol product. As a result, by the time a consumer purchases the subject products, the retinol is no longer active.”

💡 This explains the two-pronged failure: insufficient contact time and degraded ingredient, both of which render the product ineffective despite advertising claims.

“Experience Roc’s award-winning retinol now in a daily cleanser. Advanced Retinol & Niacinamide leave skin smoother and firmer, while gently removing oil, dirt, and even long-wear makeup trapped on the surface. 97% had visibly reduced fine lines and deep wrinkles. 100% saw instantly smoother, firmer looking skin.”

💡 These are the specific product claims printed on the Retinol Rinse-Off Cleanser packaging that plaintiffs allege are false and misleading.

“Retinol, however, takes time to work. It must undergo a complex biological conversion to its active form, retinoic acid, in the skin in order to impart these effects. To have any impact, retinol-containing products require long-term, consistent exposure to the skin that is repeated daily. Otherwise, these products confer none of the suggested benefits of retinol.”

💡 This quote provides the scientific foundation for why a rinse-off retinol product is inherently ineffective, supporting the fraud allegations.

“Even prescription tretinoin (synthetic active retinoic acid), which bypasses the complex conversion process of retinyl esters → retinol → retinaldehyde → retinoic acid, comes with specific application guidelines. Users are advised to avoid washing the skin treated with tretinoin for at least 1 hour after applying it.”

💡 This comparison to FDA-approved tretinoin underscores how unrealistic it is to expect a rinse-off cleanser to deliver similar benefits.

“Retinol’s instability further limits its effectiveness. Exposure to heat, light, and trace metals accelerates its decomposition, and its efficacy can only be preserved under strict conditions: controlled atmospheric conditions, storage in aluminum tubes, and an environment below 68 degrees Fahrenheit. The Retinol Rinse-Off Cleanser is not shipped or stored on retail stores at the proper temperature and Defendant packages them in plastic containers, not aluminum.”

💡 This reveals a second major flaw in RoC’s product: even if contact time were adequate, the retinol is likely degraded and inactive due to packaging and storage failures.

“Experience America’s #1 Most Awarded Retinol now available in a gentle daily cleanser. With RoC’s Deep Wrinkle Serum Cleanser, 100% of women saw instantly more radiant, smoother-looking skin. After just two weeks, 97% of women had an improvement in skin firmness and a visible reduction in fine lines & wrinkles, even deep ones.”

💡 This is the marketing copy from RoC’s official website that plaintiffs argue is deceptive given the product cannot function as advertised.

“RoC is famous for its award-winning retinol products, which manage to deliver the good effects of retinol (exfoliation, collagen stimulation, and even radiant skin tone) while skipping the bad ones (dryness, irritation). That combination is especially true in their Retinol Correxion Deep Wrinkle Serum Cleanser. With this product, you get the benefits of retinol in the convenience of a cleanser.”

💡 RoC used an attributed dermatologist statement to lend credibility to claims that the lawsuit alleges are scientifically implausible for a rinse-off product.

“In reliance on the advertising message that the Retinol Rinse-Off Cleanser contained retinol and would confer the benefits of retinol, Plaintiff Vales purchased the Retinol Rinse-Off Cleanser, paying between approximately $10 and $15 at Target in San Jose, California, in the middle of 2024. By purchasing the deceptively advertised Retinol Rinse-Off Cleanser, Plaintiff Vales suffered injury-in-fact and lost money.”

💡 This illustrates the direct economic harm: a consumer paid for a product based on advertised benefits that the product could not deliver.

“RoC exploits consumers’ perception of the benefits of retinol and consumers’ lack of knowledge about how retinol works by deceptively advertising and selling a rinse-off Retinol Correxion Deep Wrinkle Serum Cleanser that purports to deliver the commonly understood dermatologic benefits of retinol—but is rinsed off right away, therefore minimizing its contact time with the target organ, in this case the skin.”

💡 This highlights the corporate strategy of exploiting the information asymmetry between what consumers know about retinol’s reputation and the technical requirements for it to work.

“In addition, Defendant’s conduct was fraudulent, malicious, and in reckless disregard of the truth such that an award of punitive damages is appropriate.”

💡 Plaintiffs allege RoC’s actions were not mere negligence but a willful disregard for the truth, justifying punitive measures beyond compensatory damages.

“Defendant engaged in false and deceptive advertising of the Retinol Rinse-Off Cleansers. Defendant intended that Plaintiffs and each of the other members of the Consumer Protection Multistate Class would rely on the advertising claim at issue and that a reasonable person would be misled by this deceptive conduct described above.”

💡 This establishes the legal basis for claims under multiple state consumer protection statutes, asserting that RoC knowingly misled consumers.

“Unlike FDA-approved tretinoin, retinols—which are twenty times less potent than tretinoin—require a series of complex enzymatic steps in the body, including oxidation and hydroxylation, to convert into active retinoic acid. This intricate process underscores the biological hurdles involved in achieving any meaningful effect from retinol.”

💡 This illustrates the scientific complexity of retinol action and the regulatory distinction between cosmetics and drugs, highlighting how cosmetics face less stringent efficacy requirements.

“On behalf of Plaintiff Pepenella and other members of the New York Subclass, Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the unlawful acts and practices described herein, to recover their actual damages or fifty dollars for each Retinol Rinse-Off Cleanser purchase, whichever is greater, three times actual damages, punitive damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and an order enjoining Defendant’s deceptive conduct.”

💡 This demonstrates the range of remedies sought, including stopping the alleged deceptive practices and recovering financial losses for the class.

“Defendant has been unjustly enriched in retaining the revenues derived from Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ purchases of the Retinol Rinse-Off Cleanser. Retention of that money under these circumstances is unjust and inequitable because Defendant misrepresented that the Retinol Rinse-Off Cleanser the suggested benefits of OTC topical retinol products.”

💡 This establishes the unjust enrichment claim, arguing that RoC unfairly profited from selling a misrepresented product.