Tom’s of Maine Products Class Action Settlement

Tom’s of Maine Inc. has agreed to settle a false advertisement class action lawsuit, resolving claims that the company mislabeled certain beauty and personal care products as natural when they allegedly contained chemical products. If you purchased one of the Tom’s of Maine products covered in this false advertisement class action settlement, you may be entitled to compensation.

Covered Products in this Tom’s of Maine class action settlement include:

  • Toothpaste
  • Deodorant/Antiperspirant
  • Soap
  • Diaper Cream
  • Lip Balm or Gloss
  • Sunscreen
  • Body Lotion
  • Body Wash
  • Shampoo
  • Hand Cream
  • Mouthwash
  • Other personal or oral care products

Plaintiff Allison Gay and other individuals filed this Tom’s of Maine false ad class action lawsuit in March 2015, alleging the company purposefully mislabeled their personal hygiene and beauty products listed above as “natural” when they allegedly contained unnatural substances.

For example, the Tome’s of Main class action lawsuit states that the brand’s “natural” toothpaste contains both glycerin and sodium lauryl sulfate.

Tom’s of Maine has denied all wrongdoing and liability in this false ad class action lawsuit, but has agreed to settle in order to avoid the uncertainty of continued litigation and mounting court costs.

A federal judge preliminarily approved the Tom’s of Maine settlement on Sept. 9, 2015.

In addition to paying $4.5 million to establish a settlement fund for Class Members, the Tom’s of Maine class action settlement requires the company to change their labeling and marketing practices for the Covered Products, as well as make certain changes to the company’s website.

Who’s Eligible

You are a Class Member of the Tom’s of Maine class action settlement if purchased at least one of the Tom’s of Maine products covered in this lawsuit between March 25, 2009 and Sept. 23, 2015.

Potential Award

Up to $28, depending on the information you provide in your Claim Form.

Proof of Purchase

In order to claim your portion of the Tom’s of Maine class action settlement, you must complete online or mail in a complete Claim Form by May 7, 2016, which should include the following information:

  • Your Mailing Address.
  • Description of total number and type of Tom’s of Maine Covered Products that you have purchased. You should also include the purchase location.
  • Signature affirming all the information you provided is true.
Claim Form Deadline

05/07/2016

Case Name
Allison Gay, et al. v. Tom’s of Maine, Inc., Case No. 0:14-cv-60604-KMM, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Final Hearing

01/28/2016

Settlement Website
Claims Administrator

Tom’s of Maine Settlement
c/o Dahl Administration
P.O. Box 3614
Minneapolis, MN 55403-0614
1-888-897-9554

Class Counsel

SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
REESE LLP
HALUNEN LAW
DOSTART CLAPP & COVENEY LLP
THE FEINBERG LAW FIRM

Defense Counsel

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP

Stevia in the Raw

The manufacturer Stevia In The Raw has agreed to pay more than $1.5 million in order to settle a class action lawsuit that alleges the company deceptively labeled its product as “all natural.”

If you purchased at least one Stevia in the Raw brand Consumer Product containing the phrases “natural,” “all natural” or “100% natural” in the United States between Oct. 9, 2009 and July 1, 2014, you may be eligible for a cash payment.

Lead plaintiff Leslie Frohberg of New York accused Stevia In The Raw maker Cumberland Packing Corp. of misleading customers by the “natural” claims listed on sweetener packages.

According to the Stevia class action lawsuit, the label prominently states that Stevia In The Raw is a “100% Natural Zero Calorie Sweetener” and Frohberg says she paid more because she believed it to be natural.

However, the Stevia In The Raw class action lawsuit states that Cumberland conceals from customers that ingredients dextrose and maltodextrin are derived from highly processed GMO corn, in part by stating that they are “natural carbohydrate[s].”

Frohberg alleges that by labeling the sugar substitute as “natural,” “all natural” or “100% natural,” Stevia In The Raw manufacturer has “profited enormously.” She claims that there were less expensive sweeteners available to customers but Class Members were willing to pay extra for a “natural” product.

In addition to the Settlement Fund, Cumberland has also agreed to stop using the phrases “100% natural” or “all natural” on packages or labels of its Stevia In The Raw products.

Cumberland denies that its advertising and labeling of Stevia In The Raw is deceptive but has agreed to the terms of the Stevia In The Raw class action lawsuit settlement in order to avoid the cost of further litigation.

A federal judge preliminarily approved the Stevia class action settlement on Dec. 16, 2015.

Who’s Eligible

Stevia class action settlement Class Members include all U.S. residents who purchased Stevia In The Raw product for personal use between Oct. 9, 2009, and July 1, 2014. The Stevia In the Raw package must have contained the terms “natural,” “all natural” or “100% natural.”

Potential Award

$2-$16

Class Members may receive $2 for each package of Stevia In The Raw containing the terms “natural,” “all natural” or “100% natural” that was purchased between Oct. 9, 2009 and July 1, 2014, up to a maximum of 8 packages.

Proof of Purchase

N/A

No proof of purchase is required but in order to receive payment, Class Members must file a Claim Form. Only one Claim Form is permitted for each household.

Claim Form Deadline

06/06/2016

Case Name

Frohberg v. Cumberland Packing Corp., Case No. 1:14-cv-00748-KAM-RLM in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Final Hearing

04/06/2016

Claims Administrator

Stevia In The Raw
c/o Dahl Administration
PO Box 3614
Minneapolis, MN 55403-0614
888-313-3557

info@SteviaInTheRawSettlement.com

Class Counsel

Michael R. Reese
REESE LLP

Melissa W. Wolchansky
HALUNEN LAW

Defense Counsel

Todd Kinnear
Benjamin Aaron Levine
Michael D. Scully
Richard Spira
GORDON & REES LLP