Dove ‘Invisible Advanced Care’ Antiperspirant Leaves White Marks, Class Action Claims

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Dove-branded “Invisible Advanced Care” women’s antiperspirant is at the center of a proposed class action lawsuit in which a Missouri woman alleges Unilever’s claim that the product leaves “no white marks on 100 colors” is false.

According to the lawsuit, Dove’s “Invisible Advanced Care” product, despite indications of its superiority to other deodorants, is “nothing more than a slightly diluted version” of Dove’s regular “Advanced Care” antiperspirant. Echoing claims in a similar lawsuit filed over the dryspray antiperspirant in Dove’s “Invisible” line, the case argues that the Dove “Invisible Advanced Care” antiperspirant stick contains the same ingredients as its regular non-“Invisible” counterpart, with no additional components added to support the defendant’s claims of “white mark protection.”

The only difference between the two variations, according to the complaint, is that their active ingredient, aluminum zirconium tetrachlorohydrex GLY, is diluted to 11.4 percent in the “Invisible Advanced Care” version from a concentration of 15.2 percent in the non-“Invisible” version.

The case contends that Unilever leads consumers to believe that the Dove “Invisible Advanced Care” product is superior to the regular Advanced Care antiperspirant, when in reality it is “nothing more than a re-packaged version” of the same product.

Moreover, notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the “Invisible Advanced Care” product is not actually “invisible” and does, in fact, leave white marks on clothing, the lawsuit alleges. The suit goes on to argue that the product’s active ingredient is what actually causes the white marks, noting that aluminum’s propensity to produce white marks on clothing is “well-accepted” yet likely unknown to buyers.

Unilever, the case claims, has used these “patently false” statements concerning its “Invisible” line of antiperspirants to mislead consumers into buying what they believe is a superior product.

“Upon information and belief,” the complaint reads, “Defendant Unilever deceptively and misleadingly markets the Product as falsely having ‘protection’ against white marks and leaving ‘no white marks’ in order to distract consumers from the fact that the Product is, in fact, inferior in its primary purpose, preventing perspiration, and is cheaper to produce.”