Skincare companies are not always the most transparent when it comes to their beauty claims. They often use buzzwords in their marketing and advertisements that imply that they are better or “cleaner” than they are, whatever that concept means. But a well known skincare brand, Eucerin, has maybe taken these claims a bit too far and has even made demonstrably false claims about the ingredients in some of their products, calling them “natural moisturizing factors,” when in reality they include synthetic ingredients.
While everything in life is made out of chemicalsmost consumers are actually unaware of the naturally occurring formulations and those that have been artificially created in a lab to be better suited for a specific product. No option is better, at least not in general, but consumers should still have the option to decide what they wish to purchase and put on their bodies. And, since false advertisement is a thing that is heavily regulated, they should not have to obtain a masters in chemistry in order to decipher the ingredients list on the packaging, they should be able to trust the claims written plainly on the bottle.
The Eucerin lawsuit, a lapse in communication or a deliberate marketing strategy?
The lawsuit was filed by Christine Slowinski, who she bought a bottle of Eucerin lotion at a Target in Schaumburg, Illinois, back in 2024. She claims she relied on the label’s promise of “natural” ingredients when choosing the product, but later learned that it actually contains lab-made moisturizers like lactic acid and glycine and argued that no average shopper would expect those to be in something described as natural.
In the lawsuit, she stated that “Reasonable consumers understand the term ‘natural’ to mean ‘found in nature and not involving anything made or done by people.’” and that that these synthetic ingredients are not easy to spot unless you have deep chemical knowledge or go digging through the production process. Given that most people do not do enough research to figure out the origin of every chemical on their bottle, it is unsurprising that the company can get away with the claims.
One of the components, for example, the lactic acid in Eucerin lotions reportedly comes from a process where genetically modified bacteria are fed glucose or another carbohydrate and then produce lactic acid as a metabolic byproduct, then the end result gets purified and added to the lotion. Sodium PCA, another moisturizing component, is said to be made in two chemical steps. And arginine HCL comes from mixing arginine with hydrochloric acid. There is also Ozokeerite in the Intensive Repair version, which may be either refined from mined materials or fully synthesized from petroleum sources.
While all of these ingredients are safe and would not cause issues unless a specific allergy is detected, Slowinski’s issue remain on the misleading labeling that claims that the product is natural, as many shoppers would not purchase this product if they knew the production process. Plus, she believes that the company is able to charge more for the products just by claiming that they are natural, as that claim usually means limited resources extracted from the Earth, which usually cost a premium.
She is hoping to represent a whole class of people from across the U.S. who bought these lotions, and her case rests on the idea that misleading labels took away her ability to make a truly informed decision.
Slowinski’s legal team includes attorneys Todd Friedman and Steve Perry from the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman P.C. The case, filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division, is officially titled *Slowinski v. Beiersdorf Inc.*, Case No. 2025-CH-04963.
