Corporate Malfeasance Case Study: Beiersdorf Inc. & Its Impact on Consumers Seeking “Natural” Skincare
TLDR: Beiersdorf, Inc., the maker of Nivea products, stands accused of systematically deceiving consumers by marketing its “Nourish by Nature” and “Naturally Good” skincare lines with claims of high percentages of “natural origin” or “naturally-derived” ingredients, such as “98% Naturally Derived.” A class-action lawsuit alleges these claims are false and misleading, as the products purportedly contain significant amounts of synthetic, industrially-produced chemicals, leveraging a complex and obscure industry standard never intended for consumer-facing labels. This alleged deception targets a growing market of health and environmentally conscious consumers, inducing them to pay a premium for products that are not what they seem.
Read on for a detailed investigation into the allegations and the systemic issues they represent.
Inside the Allegations: A Façade of Natural Purity
The core of the lawsuit, filed by individuals Aisley Davis, Julius Yarbough, Valerie Robins, Marisol Scharon, and Kathryn Bowman, details a calculated marketing strategy by Beiersdorf.
These consumers purchased various Nivea products, including lotions, creams, and wipes, explicitly relying on front-label declarations that specific high percentages of the ingredients were from “natural origin” or “naturally derived.” The packaging, often adorned with plant imagery, further reinforced this perception.
However, the complaint argues that these representations are patently false and misleading.
An investigation outlined in the legal filings suggests that, contrary to the bold percentage claims, almost all ingredients in the products, apart from water (which itself makes up roughly 80% of such lotions), are synthetic and of industrial origin.
This means that even considering water, the products are estimated to be only approximately 80-85% natural origin or naturally-derived, a significant shortfall from the advertised figures, which often exceed 95%.
The lawsuit points to common cosmetic ingredients listed in these Nivea products—such as glycerin, cetearyl alcohol, coco-caprylate/caprate, cocoglycerides, glyceryl stearate SE, dicaprylyl ether, hydroxypropyl starch phosphate, and citric acid—as being industrially produced.
Even when compounds like citric acid can occur in nature, the scale required for mass-produced goods necessitates their creation through industrial chemical processes, not direct extraction from natural sources. The natural components highlighted in marketing, like avocado oil, lavender oil, or aloe vera, are allegedly only minor ingredients.
Timeline of Alleged Deception & Consumer Action
While the legal document primarily outlines the nature of the ongoing alleged misconduct rather than a historical timeline of its development, key dates regarding the plaintiffs’ experiences and legal actions are provided:
| Date/Period | Event |
| June 2024 | Plaintiff Aisley Davis purchased Beiersdorf “Naturally Good” Night Cream (claiming “98% Natural Origin Ingredients”) and Biodegradable Wipes (claiming “97% Natural Origin Ingredients”) in Redding, CA. |
| October 2024 | Plaintiff Valerie Robins purchased Beiersdorf “Naturally Good” Argan Oil Regenerating Night Cream (claiming “99% Natural Origin ingredients”) in Solano County, CA. |
| November 2024 | Plaintiff Marisol Scharon purchased Beiersdorf “Nourish by Nature” Aloe Vera Body Lotion (claiming “98% Naturally-Derived Ingredients”) in San Pedro, CA. |
| December 2023 (approx.) | Plaintiff Julius Yarbough began purchasing Beiersdorf “Naturally Good” Deodorant (claiming “98% Naturally-Derived* Ingredients”) in Solano County, CA on multiple occasions. |
| 2024 (general) | Plaintiff Kathryn Bowman purchased “Naturally Good” Face Cleanser (claiming “98% Ingredients of Natural Origin*”) in Carmichael, CA. |
| November 11, 2024 | Plaintiff Burrola (not one of the five named plaintiffs in the introduction, but mentioned in the CLRA notice section) provided notice to Beiersdorf regarding alleged unlawful practices. |
| February 6, 2025 | Plaintiff Kent (similarly, mentioned in the CLRA notice section) provided notice to Beiersdorf. |
| April 25, 2025 | Class Action Complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. |
| April 25, 2021 – Present | Proposed class period for persons in California who purchased the products. |
This timeline indicates that consumers were being misled by these product claims leading up to and through 2024 and 2025, prompting the legal action. You can read more about this by checking out the PDF at the bottom of this article!
Regulatory Capture & Loopholes: The ISO 16128 Gambit
A particularly damning aspect of the allegations centers on Beiersdorf’s purported basis for its “natural” percentage claims: the ISO 16128 standard, titled “Guidelines on technical definitions and criteria for natural and organic cosmetic ingredients and products.” The lawsuit argues that this standard, developed by the British Standards Institute (BSI), a private, industry-based group, employs a “Byzantine method” to calculate “natural origin.”
This method allows synthetic chemicals to be characterized as “naturally derived” or “natural origin” by comparing the mass of atoms from a “natural” starting material to the total mass of the industrially produced chemical.
The complaint highlights several critical issues with using ISO 16128 for consumer-facing claims:
- Not Intended for Labeling: The ISO 16128 standard itself explicitly states: “Neither ISO 16128-1 nor this document [i.e., ISO 16128-2] addresses product communication (e.g. claims and labelling)…” Beiersdorf’s decision to use it for precisely this purpose, despite this clear disclaimer, is presented as inherently deceptive.
- Inaccessible and Complex: The standard is proprietary, costing around $400 to obtain, making it practically unavailable to the average consumer. Even if accessible, it is written for chemists and is too complicated for laypeople to understand.
- Misleading Definitions: The standard defines “derived natural ingredients” as those with “greater than 50% natural origin, by molecular weight, by renewable carbon content, or by any other relevant methods, obtained through defined chemical and/or biological processes with the intention of chemical modification.” This allows heavily processed, synthetic ingredients to be classified as largely “natural.” The lawsuit uses the example of aspartame (an artificial sweetener made from naturally occurring amino acids and methanol) and hydrogenated vegetable oils (industrially altered oils), which could potentially be labeled as “100% natural origin” or “~99% natural origin” respectively under ISO 16128, underscoring how misleading it can be for consumers.
- Lack of Uniformity: The standard allows manufacturers to choose whether to include or exclude added water in their calculations, meaning the same product could have different “% natural origin” indices. It also vaguely refers to “renewable carbon content” or “any other relevant methods” without clear definitions.
This reliance on a private, obscure, and arguably inappropriate industry standard, rather than clear, publicly accountable regulations, exemplifies a loophole.
It suggests a system where industry can self-define terms in ways that benefit marketing, potentially at the expense of consumer understanding and truthfulness, a scenario often seen under neoliberal frameworks that favor deregulation and industry self-policing.
The lawsuit also claims these practices conflict with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) guidance, specifically the “Green Guides,” which caution against overstating environmental attributes and misrepresenting products as “made with renewable materials” without sufficient specificity.
Profit-Maximization at All Costs: Tapping the “Natural” Goldmine
The lawsuit asserts that Beiersdorf’s alleged misrepresentations are a deliberate attempt to capitalize on the burgeoning market for “natural” beauty products.
This market is large and growing, fueled by consumer beliefs that natural products are safer, better for their bodies, and more environmentally friendly. Studies cited in the complaint indicate that consumers are willing to pay more for products perceived as natural, and that the absence of synthetic chemicals is a major concern for them.
By mislabeling its products, Beiersdorf intentionally misled customers to convince them to purchase these Nivea products when they might not have otherwise, or to pay higher prices than they would have if the true nature of the ingredients was known.
The prominent placement of the “X% Natural” claims in large, bold font on the front labels, often larger than the brand name itself, is presented as evidence of a strategy to attract consumers who prioritize natural ingredients.
The back-label asterisked disclaimers, such as “*Naturally derived ingredients have undergone processing while retaining a majority of their natural molecular structure,” are deemed insufficient to correct the misleading front-label claims and are themselves considered misleading by the plaintiffs. This behavior aligns with a profit-maximization incentive where tapping into consumer trends, even through potentially deceptive means, takes precedence over transparent communication.
The Economic Fallout: Consumers Left Out of Pocket
The direct economic consequence highlighted in the lawsuit is the financial harm to consumers. Plaintiffs argue they and other class members paid a price premium for the Nivea products based on the mistaken belief that they were purchasing items with a high percentage of genuinely natural ingredients.
Had they known the truth, they assert they would not have purchased the products or would have paid significantly less for them.
The lawsuit seeks restitution for this alleged overpayment—the difference between the price paid and what the products would have been worth without the misleading “natural” claims.
While the individual amounts per product might seem small, the aggregate sum across a large class of consumers could be substantial, representing a significant transfer of wealth from consumers to the corporation based on false pretenses.
This scenario, where consumers bear the financial brunt of misleading marketing, is a common critique of corporate conduct under systems that prioritize shareholder value with insufficient checks on advertising practices.
Environmental & Public Health Risks: Exploiting Consumer Trust
The desire for natural products, as the lawsuit notes, stems from consumer beliefs that they are safer for personal health and better for the environment.
Beiersdorf is accused of exploiting these deeply held beliefs. Plaintiffs state they purchased the products believing the “natural origin”/”naturally derived ingredients” made them “better for the environment, safer, and better for their skin than products comprised of synthetic, industrially-produced chemicals.”
The complaint challenges this perceived benefit by asserting that many of the ingredients are synthetic. Furthermore, it raises concerns about the environmental impact of sourcing even the “natural” starting materials.
For instance, the lawsuit touches upon the specious assumption that using a plant as an initial source of carbon content automatically makes the resulting synthetic chemical environmentally friendly.
It points out that ingredients like palm oil (a common base for cosmetic ingredients) often originate from environmentally damaging practices, such as monoculture plantations created by clear-cutting rainforests and using pesticides. Labeling such products as “Natural Origin” or “Naturally-Derived” is thus characterized as false or misleading regarding their true environmental footprint.
This exploitation of consumer trust in “natural” as a proxy for “safe” and “eco-friendly” highlights a public health dimension: consumers may be unknowingly exposing themselves to ingredients they believe they are avoiding, or supporting environmental practices they would otherwise condemn.
The PR Machine: Corporate Spin Tactics and “Greenwashing”
The lawsuit explicitly accuses Beiersdorf of “greenwashing”—deceptively marketing products as more environmentally friendly or natural than they actually are. It even quotes a Ninth Circuit judge’s concurring opinion in a different case (McGinnity v. The Procter & Gamble Company, which involved Beiersdorf and “Nature Fusion” claims) noting that Beiersdorf’s labeling “resembles a concerning practice known as ‘greenwashing.'” This practice, the court noted, affects how consumers buy cosmetics, with products labeled “natural” that “actually contain chemicals.”
In the current case, the plaintiffs argue Beiersdorf’s use of the ISO 16128 standard is a key component of this greenwashing. By using an industry-devised calculation to label synthetic chemicals as “natural origin” or “naturally-derived,” the company “gaslights consumers.” The complaint contends that even the back-label asterisk statements fail to clarify the synthetic nature of many ingredients to a layperson, effectively acting as a “bait-and-switch tactic.”
The very act of placing prominent “X% Natural” claims on the front label, while relying on obscure, technical, and inappropriate standards or fine-print disclaimers that do not correct the primary misleading impression, can be seen as a sophisticated spin tactic designed to manage public perception and drive sales without adhering to the spirit of transparency.
Wealth Disparity & Corporate Greed: Profiting from Misinformation
While the legal document doesn’t detail Beiersdorf’s specific profits from these product lines or executive compensation, the lawsuit is framed within the context of a company seeking to maximize profits by tapping into a lucrative market segment. Beiersdorf knowingly made false and deceptive claims to increase sales and revenue from consumers who prioritize and are willing to pay more for “natural” products.
This behavior—prioritizing increased sales and market share through misleading labeling over ethical and transparent communication with consumers—can be viewed as a manifestation of corporate greed. In a system where corporate success is often measured by short-term financial gains, the temptation to cut corners on ethical marketing to appeal to a high-value consumer demographic can be strong.
Beiersdorf profited from an information asymmetry, where consumers, lacking the chemical expertise or access to proprietary standards, were unable to discern the true nature of the products, leading to an unjust enrichment of the company at the expense of its customers.
Corporate Accountability Fails the Public: The Need for Legal Recourse
The existence of this class-action lawsuit itself suggests a potential failure in proactive regulatory oversight to prevent such deceptive practices. Consumers are turning to the courts for redress because they believe the existing framework has not adequately protected them. The lawsuit argues that Beiersdorf “refused and failed to change the labels, remove the false representations, or otherwise inform Plaintiffs… of the Products true composition” despite knowing its claims were false.
The complaint highlights that the ISO 16128 standard, which Beiersdorf relies upon, was created by an industry group “without any public comment” and “solely by cosmetic industry scientists, without involvement of any consumer advocates or persons familiar with consumer advertising.”
This points to a system where industry can create its own rules that may not align with consumer protection, a hallmark of regulatory capture or, at least, insufficient public-interest representation in standard-setting. The reliance on consumer litigation to enforce truthful advertising after the fact is a less efficient and often less impactful mechanism than robust, upfront regulation and enforcement.
Pathways for Reform & Consumer Advocacy
The lawsuit, by seeking injunctive relief to stop Beiersdorf from continuing these practices, implicitly calls for reform. A more transparent and honest labeling system for “natural” and “naturally-derived” ingredients in cosmetics is clearly needed. This could involve:
- Clearer, Government-Mandated Definitions: Instead of relying on obscure, private industry standards like ISO 16128, governments could establish and enforce clear, understandable definitions for terms like “natural,” “natural origin,” and “naturally-derived” specifically for consumer-facing product labeling.
- Greater Transparency in Sourcing and Processing: Companies could be required to disclose not just the origin of starting materials but also the extent and nature of chemical processing an ingredient undergoes.
- Independent Verification: Certification by truly independent, third-party organizations with no industry bias could provide consumers with more reliable information.
- Stronger Enforcement: Regulatory bodies like the FTC may need enhanced powers and resources to proactively monitor and penalize misleading “natural” claims.
Consumer advocacy also plays a crucial role. Lawsuits like this one raise public awareness and can pressure companies to change their practices. Vigilant consumer groups and informed individuals can push for legislative changes and hold corporations accountable for their marketing claims.
Legal Minimalism: The Letter vs. The Spirit of the Law
Beiersdorf’s use of the ISO 16128 standard, while simultaneously pointing to asterisked definitions on the back label, could be interpreted as an attempt at “legal minimalism.”
This is a practice where a company might technically comply with certain minimal disclosure requirements (like having an asterisk and some form of definition) while the overall impression created by its primary, prominent marketing messages remains misleading. The company might argue it did provide a definition, however obscure or unhelpful to the average consumer.
Under neoliberal capitalism, there’s often a focus on formal compliance rather than adherence to the ethical spirit of consumer protection laws.
The complaint suggests that the asterisked statements—such as “*Ingredients sourced from nature retaining greater than 50% of their molecular structure (natural state) after being processed, including water”—are still misleading because they fail to explicitly tell a layperson that the ingredients are synthetic.
This highlights a system where complex, technical “disclosures” can be used not to inform, but to provide a veneer of legal cover for potentially deceptive overarching claims.
Profiting from Complexity: When Obscurity Shields Misconduct
The very nature of the ISO 16128 standard—its cost, its technical complexity, its allowance for varied interpretations, and its unsuitability for consumer communication as stated by its own authors—creates an environment where complexity can shield misconduct.
Beiersdorf’s decision to use this standard as the basis for its prominent “natural” percentage claims leverages this obscurity.
An ordinary consumer cannot reasonably be expected to purchase a $400 standard, decipher its chemical and mathematical intricacies, and then cross-reference it with an ingredient list to verify a product claim. By relying on such a convoluted system, a company can make bold, simple claims on the front of a package, knowing that the “substantiation” is buried in a way that is virtually inaccessible and incomprehensible to the target audience.
This is a recurring theme in late-stage capitalism, where complex financial instruments, convoluted supply chains, or opaque corporate structures can make it difficult to pinpoint responsibility or even understand the true nature of a product or service, often to the detriment of the consumer or the public good.
This Is the System Working as Intended
The allegations against Beiersdorf, if proven true, are not merely an isolated case of a single company potentially misleading consumers.
They are symptomatic of a broader systemic issue within neoliberal capitalism. When regulations are weak or captured by industry interests, when profit maximization is the paramount corporate goal, and when complex and obscure standards can be used to justify potentially misleading marketing, such outcomes are predictable. The drive to gain a competitive edge in a lucrative market like “natural” skincare can incentivize companies to push the boundaries of truthful advertising.
The lawsuit against Beiersdorf illustrates how the pursuit of profit can lead to practices that undermine consumer trust and potentially exploit their desire for healthier and more ethical products. It underscores the constant tension between corporate interests and public welfare in a system that often prioritizes the former.
This case serves as a reminder that “natural” on a label may not mean what consumers intuitively believe it to mean, and that vigilance, strong regulation, and legal challenges are often necessary to hold corporations accountable.
Conclusion: The Price of “Natural” Claims
The lawsuit against Beiersdorf, Inc. paints an alarming picture of alleged corporate deception, where the pursuit of profit in the booming “natural” skincare market may have led to systematically misleading consumers.
Nivea’s “Nourish by Nature” and “Naturally Good” lines, despite their prominent claims of high percentages of natural ingredients, are largely composed of synthetic, industrially-produced chemicals, a truth obscured through the misuse of a complex and inappropriate industry standard.
This case transcends a simple dispute over product labeling. It touches upon fundamental issues of corporate ethics, regulatory effectiveness, and the right of consumers to make informed purchasing decisions based on honest and transparent information.
The financial harm against consumers who paid a premium for a “natural” promise they did not receive highlights the economic impact.
Meowover, the exploitation of consumer desires for safer and more environmentally friendly products reveals a deeper breach of trust.
Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?
Based solely on the detailed allegations and extensive arguments presented in the class action complaint, this lawsuit appears to represent a serious legal grievance.
The legal complaint meticulously lays out how Beiersdorf’s prominent front-label claims about specific high percentages of “natural origin” or “naturally-derived” ingredients are false and misleading due to the actual synthetic and industrially-produced nature of many ingredients.
The plaintiffs provide a plausible mechanism for this deception through the company’s purported reliance on the ISO 16128 standard—a standard that is described as obscure, expensive, complex, not intended for consumer labeling by its own creators, and allowing for calculations that can misrepresent synthetic ingredients as “natural.”
The legal complaint also details how consumers relied on these claims to their financial detriment, believing they were purchasing products that were safer, better for the environment, and better for their skin. Specific examples of ingredients and the discrepancy between advertised and actual natural content are provided.
Furthermore, the lawsuit cites external sources, including judicial commentary on “greenwashing” and FTC guidelines, to bolster its claims of deceptive practices.
The detailed declarations from the named plaintiffs regarding their purchasing decisions and reliance on the labels further substantiate the claims of direct harm. Therefore, the lawsuit appears to be a well-documented challenge to Beiersdorf’s marketing practices, reflecting meaningful concerns about consumer rights and corporate transparency rather than a frivolous action.
đź’ˇ Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
