A Consumer Protection and Employment Law Firm Serving California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Illinois.

Ninth Circuit Affirms Class Action Against J&J Over “Oil-Free” Deception—Todd M. Friedman P.C. Leads the Fight

Table Of Contents
Summarize with
ChatGPT Claude Gemini Perplexity Grok

When a label says “oil-free,” consumers deserve to trust it. At the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., we hold corporations accountable when they break that trust—and the courts are backing us up.

In a major consumer victory, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed class certification in a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., accusing the company of falsely labeling Neutrogena products as “oil-free” while containing multiple oil-based ingredients.

Read the full article at Law360 (subscription required).

Our firm represents lead plaintiff Narguess Noohi, who filed suit after purchasing a Neutrogena moisturizer based on its prominent “oil-free” label—only to discover it did, in fact, contain oil-based ingredients. She, like countless other consumers, relied on that representation to make an informed decision. And like many of our clients, she was misled.

You may be owed compensation if you purchased a falsely advertised product. Don’t wait. Todd delivers justice. Call today for a free consultation.

What the Court Said

Johnson & Johnson attempted to dodge accountability by arguing the damages model proposed by our expert was “underdeveloped.” But the Ninth Circuit rejected that argument. The court ruled that at this early stage, the expert model only needs to be capable of calculating class-wide damages—not fully complete.

J&J also argued that individual consumers might interpret “oil-free” differently, trying to fracture the class. Again, the court disagreed, ruling that the reasonable consumer standard applies. If a reasonable person would find the label “oil-free” material to their purchase decision, that’s enough to show harm across the class.

Our legal team proved that corporate marketing tricks don’t stand up to the law when challenged with facts and resolve.

Why This Matters

False advertising is more than just bad business—it’s consumer fraud, and it disproportionately harms working families trying to make healthy, informed choices. Whether it’s skincare, food, financial products, or employment terms, companies have a legal and moral obligation to be honest with the public.

At Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C., we’ve recovered over $1 billion for consumers who were misled, wronged, or taken advantage of by corporate giants.

Justice is possible—but only when you act. If you believe you’ve been misled by a product label, contact us. It costs nothing to find out if you have a case.

The Path Forward

With class certification now affirmed, this case will proceed toward trial, where we will fight to ensure every affected consumer has their voice heard and their losses addressed. Johnson & Johnson is not above the law—and neither is any other company that uses slick marketing to sidestep honesty.

If you or someone you know purchased a Neutrogena product labeled “oil-free” and later discovered it wasn’t, you may be eligible to join this lawsuit or pursue separate claims. We’re here to help you understand your rights.


Todd Delivers Justice

Call (877) 619-8966 or visit toddflaw.com to schedule your free consultation with Todd or one of our experienced consumer rights attorneys.

We don’t back down. We don’t settle for corporate excuses. And we don’t charge unless we win.


Quick Navigation

Free Consultation

Undisclosed
Settlement

TCPA class action against the Los Angeles Times. Final approval granted 2014.

More Details
$750,000
Settlement

Common fund class-wide TCPA settlement against home healthcare provider. Final approval granted.

More Details
$27.6M
Settlement

TCPA class action certified on behalf of approximately 2,000,000 class members under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3). Subsequently settled on a Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) basis. Final approval granted.

More Details
$5.2M
Settlement

/

Unruh Act class action on behalf of approximately 240,000 consumers challenging Tinder’s age-based differential pricing for its subscription service. Final approval granted; subsequently went up on appeal.

More Details
$390,000
Settlement

TCPA class action alleging HD Supply sent unauthorized marketing text messages to consumers’ mobile phones without consent between October 21, 2011 and July 26, 2017. Presided over by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. Case terminated January 29, 2018.

More Details
$1,500,000
Settlement

/

TCPA class action against a Kansas-based payday lender alleged to have contacted consumers via prerecorded calls on their cell phones to collect alleged debts without consent. California federal judge granted final approval.

More Details
$6,500,000
Settlement

/

Cal. Penal Code § 632.7 class action certified by contested motion under Rule 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) on behalf of over 40,000 class members whose calls were recorded without their knowledge or consent. Final approval granted.

More Details
$13,000,000
Settlement

/

$13 Million Class action alleging HSBC recorded consumer telephone calls without knowledge or consent in violation of California’s Privacy Statute (Penal Code § 632.7). California Federal Judge granted final approval.

More Details
$34,000,000
Settlement

/

One of the largest TCPA class action settlements in U.S. history at time of approval. Alleged Chase used an automatic telephone dialing system to contact consumers on their cell phones without prior express consent from July 2008 through December 2013. Settlement class included over 32 million members. Final approval granted March 2016.

More Details
$150,000,000
Settlement

/

Class action on behalf of over 100,000 owners of GM vehicles equipped with allegedly defective LG-manufactured batteries posing fire and safety risks. Litigation commenced December 2020. U.S. District Judge Terrence G. Berg indicated preliminary approval of the $150 million settlement.

More Details
$100,000,000
Settlement

/ /

Landmark gig-economy class action. DoorDash drivers in California and Massachusetts alleged they were wrongly classified as independent contractors rather than employees. Firm served as class counsel. Final approval granted January 13, 2022 — the largest gig-economy worker class settlement in U.S. history at the time.

More Details

Office Locations

Copyright 2025 Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. All Rights Reserved.