‘Oil-Free’ Clinique Skincare Products Contain Oil, Class Action Says

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Clinique Laboratories has intentionally mislabeled a number of its purportedly oil-free products despite knowing that they, in fact, contain numerous oils, a proposed class action claims. 

The 20-page suit, filed on June 28 in Illinois, alleges Clinique has falsely and misleadingly claimed that the following products are oil-free despite the fact that they contain the stated varieties of oil: 

• Beyond Perfecting foundation + concealer: dimethicone, isostearyl neopentanoate, tocopheryl acetate
• Dramatically Different moisturizing gel: dimethicone, isododecane, tocopheryl acetate
• Stay-Matte sheer pressed powder: dimethicone, octyldodecyl stearoyl stearate
• Stay-Matte oil-free make up: dimethicone, tocopheryl acetate
• Super City Block: tocopherol acetate
• City Block oil-free daily face protector: dimethicone, tocopheryl acetate
• Superdefense City Block: dimethicone, tocopherol, isononyl isononanoate, neopentyl glycol diheptanoate 

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here. 

The plaintiff claims she made her decision to purchase the moisturizing gel, Stay-Matte sheer pressed powder and Beyond Perfecting foundation + concealer products at an Illinois Sephora store because each label stated the items were “oil-free.” Neither the plaintiff nor proposed class members would have bought the products, or would have paid less for them, had they known they contained oils, the suit asserts. 

According to the case, the plaintiff and other consumers are drawn to products labeled as oil-free for reasons that include skin feel and concern about the effects of oil in contributing to the formation of blackheads and acne. Moreover, buyers often do not care for the “shiny” appearance created by oil-containing products, the lawsuit says, and the plaintiff states in the suit that she does not like the residue left by oils or the effect when oil-containing products come into contact with sweat.

“In other words, Plaintiff, like any reasonable consumer, understands oils to be substances that look, feel, and interact with water the way common oils, such as olive oil, vitamin e oil or castor oil, do, and Plaintiff expected that when she bought oil-free products they would not contain any substances that can be characterized as oils based on the way they look, feel, and interact with water,” the case reads.

The Clinique skincare products listed above have “failed to live up to the reasonable expectations of consumers,” the suit adds, claiming buyers have been deprived of their legally protected interest to receive true and accurate information about the products. 

The lawsuit, which alleges violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, looks to represent all persons in the United States who bought any of the products listed above within the last four years. It also proposes a sub-class of Illinois residents who bought the products within the last ten years through the date of class certification.   

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.