Paula’s Choice Lawsuit Alleges Skincare Co. Has Done Animal Testing to Access China Consumer Market

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A new proposed class action lawsuit alleges skincare company Paula’s Choice has reneged on its cruelty-free promise and effectively “prioritized its profits over its principles” by conducting animal testing on several products to gain access to the Chinese consumer marketplace. 

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here. 

The 52-page complaint says that although Paula’s Choice has always expressly emphasized that its skincare products have never been tested on animals, and that the company does not perform animal testing anywhere in the world, Paula’s Choice “opted to import and sell its products in China where testing on animals was mandatory” during the relevant time period. 

As the filing tells it, consumers stateside have been harmed financially by overpaying for skincare cosmetics that were “in fact actually tested on animals,” despite Paula’s Choice’s assurances otherwise. 

“When a company agrees to perform animal testing to gain access to the Chinese market—while claiming the opposite in advertising, to the public, and on every product that it sells—consumers who purchased the products with false representations about the characteristics of the products are harmed,” the proposed class action summarizes. 

Paula’s Choice was founded by makeup artist and esthetician Paula Begoun in the early 1990s, when Begoun began working with a group of cosmetics chemists to develop her own skincare products, the lawsuit says. Per the case, Paula’s Choice products are sold only online, and a “key component” of the Washington-based company’s brand was that its cosmetics were cruelty-free and never tested on animals. 

The suit notes that Paula’s Choice cosmetics have been “Leaping Bunny” certified since at least 2013, meaning that the company has promised that it does not and will not conduct animal testing, either on the products themselves or on their formulations and ingredients, anywhere worldwide. 

According to the lawsuit, China’s cosmetics marketplace is the second-largest in the world, behind only that of the United States, and more than half of Chinese cosmetics consumers “prefer foreign brands over local ones.” The filing states that until 2021, it was mandatory for foreign manufacturers and distributors that wanted to sell products in China to obtain approval from the country’s National Medical Products Administration (NMPA). 

Beginning in 1990, China’s NMPA required all “non-special use” and “special use” (i.e., containing sunscreen) cosmetics to be tested on animals in Chinese designated and certified labs before they could be okayed for importation and distribution to the country’s consumers, the complaint relays. 

“From 2007 to 2014, China’s Hygienic Standards for Cosmetics (2007) dictated the required examination and testing report. … Those standards provide that the examination and testing report include multiple skin irritation tests for cosmetics used daily, acute skin irritation tests for cosmetics rinsed after use, and acute eye irritation tests for products that may come into contact with eyes.” 

Further, registration for a foreign cosmetic product with the NMPA lasted only four years, meaning that every foreign-issued cosmetic item sold in China “would have to be registered every four years and undergo animal testing every four years,” the case adds. 

The lawsuit looks to cover all persons who bought Paula’s Choice cosmetic products directly from the company’s U.S. website between December 22, 2009 and the date the arbitration clause was published on Paula’s Choice’s website, no later than March 13, 2023.  

The suit also looks to represent anyone who bought Paula’s Choice products through a third-party retailer on or after December 22, 2009. 

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