Published
September 1, 2026
Consumers who bought Gold Bond Plumping Collagen Body & Face Serum Lotion may be covered by a proposed class action alleging Gold Bond Co LLC named the product for collagen when the lotion contains none. No class has been certified and there is nothing to file yet.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. Gold Bond Co LLC has not been found liable, there is no certified class, and there is nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This Lawsuit About?
A proposed class action filed August 27, 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges that Gold Bond Plumping Collagen Body & Face Serum Lotion is named for an ingredient it does not contain. The case is Ruiz v. Gold Bond Co LLC, No. 1:26-cv-07328-AS. It is not a settlement: there is no fund, no administrator, no claim form and no deadline.The complaint's theory is narrow. It does not allege the lotion is unsafe, contaminated or ineffective. It alleges that putting the word "COLLAGEN" in the product's name, on the front of the package, tells a reasonable shopper the bottle contains collagen — and that the bottle does not. The named plaintiff alleges she bought the lotion in Bronx County, New York in or around May 2026 in reliance on that wording, and would not have bought it, or would have paid less, had she known.
Gold Bond has not yet responded in court, and none of this has been proven. A summons was issued August 28, 2026 and the court entered an order setting an initial pretrial conference the same day, which are routine case-opening steps rather than rulings on the merits.
Status
Complaint Filed
filed August 27, 2026 in the S.D.N.Y. · allegations only · no settlement
What's Alleged
A Collagen Name on a Lotion With No Collagen
the complaint says the bottle contains Tripeptide-29, a synthetic three-amino-acid peptide, not collagen
Product
Plumping Collagen Body & Face Serum Lotion
2 oz., 4.3 oz. and 8 oz. sizes · no other Gold Bond product is named
Can I Claim?
No — Nothing to File Yet
complaint stage only; no settlement fund and no payout available
What Is on the Label, and What Is in the Bottle
The front of the package reads "GOLD BOND PLUMPING COLLAGEN BODY & FACE SERUM LOTION," with COLLAGEN set as part of the product name. Retail listings for the lotion describe it as a moisturizer made "with Collagen Peptide Complex."The publicly published ingredient list for the product does not include collagen. It lists water, glycerin, isopropyl palmitate, cetyl alcohol, niacinamide, sodium hyaluronate, grapeseed oil, jojoba esters, a ceramide, several plant extracts — and, in the position where a shopper looking for collagen would find it, "Tripeptide-29 (Collagen Amino Acids)." A second peptide, palmitoyl hexapeptide-12, also appears. Neither is collagen.
That parenthetical is where the case lives. The complaint alleges the phrase "Collagen Amino Acids" does not correct the front-of-package impression and may reinforce it, because a shopper who checks the ingredient list and sees the word "collagen" reads it as confirmation rather than as a disclaimer.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
Why the Complaint Says a Tripeptide Is Not Collagen
Collagen is the most abundant protein in the human body — a large molecule built from 19 different amino acids arranged in long chains that wind into a triple helix. That structure is what gives collagen its role in skin and connective tissue.Tripeptide-29 is something much smaller. It is a synthetic peptide of exactly three amino acids — glycine, proline and hydroxyproline — catalogued in the European Commission's cosmetic ingredient database and known chemically as glycyl-prolyl-hydroxyproline. Those three amino acids do occur in collagen, and the repeating glycine-proline-hydroxyproline unit is a recognizable motif within the collagen molecule. Peptide ingredients of this kind are typically marketed on the theory that they signal to skin rather than replace what is lost.
The complaint's position is that a three-amino-acid fragment sharing building blocks with a protein is not that protein, and that a product named for collagen therefore misdescribes what is inside. Gold Bond has not filed a response, and whether a reasonable consumer would be misled is exactly the question a court would have to decide.
A Similar Collagen Case Already Settled for $9.2 Million
The complaint leans on Kandel v. Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare, LLC, a Southern District of New York case over "C+Collagen" branded skincare that plaintiffs said contained no collagen. In 2024 the court addressed the same "collagen amino acids" argument at the motion-to-dismiss stage; the complaint cites that ruling for the proposition that identifying an ingredient as "collagen amino acids" does not dispel a reasonable consumer's belief that collagen is present, and may reassure them it is.That case did not produce a liability finding. It settled, and the court granted final approval on October 31, 2024, creating a $9.2 million fund that paid $50 per product with distribution beginning December 31, 2024. A settlement is an agreement to resolve claims, not an admission of wrongdoing, and it sets no precedent binding on Gold Bond. It does show that this theory has survived early dismissal against a skincare defendant once before, which is part of why the new complaint quotes it.
Who Owns Gold Bond?
The Gold Bond brand has belonged to Sanofi since the French drugmaker bought Chattem, the Chattanooga company behind Gold Bond, Icy Hot and Selsun Blue, for $1.9 billion in 2010. When Sanofi announced in October 2024 that it would sell a controlling stake in its Opella consumer healthcare business to the private equity firm CD&R, it said Gold Bond was excluded from that transaction — so the brand stayed with Sanofi while most of the former Chattem portfolio moved on.The complaint names one defendant: Gold Bond Co LLC, which it describes as a North Carolina limited liability company with its principal place of business in New Jersey. Sanofi is not a defendant in this case, and no allegation in the complaint is directed at it.
Read the Complaint
The full class action complaint is embedded below. The reading copy has been reformatted for the web from the publicly filed document; exhibit images and personal identifiers from the original filing have been omitted.Who Is Covered and What the Lawsuit Seeks
The complaint proposes two groups: a nationwide class of everyone who bought the product in the United States within the limitations period, and a New York subclass of purchasers in the state. Neither has been certified, so neither exists as a legal matter yet. Employees, officers and affiliates of the defendant are excluded, as are anyone who opts out and the judges assigned to the case.Six counts are pleaded. Three are brought on behalf of the nationwide class — intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Three more are brought for the New York subclass: deceptive acts and practices and false advertising under New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, and breach of express warranty under N.Y. U.C.C. section 2-313. On the warranty count, the complaint says counsel mailed a pre-suit notice and demand letter to Gold Bond on June 9, 2026 and that the company did not correct the labeling.
The relief sought includes class certification, a declaration that the labeling violates those laws, restitution and disgorgement, compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and interest. The New York counts carry their own statutory floors — the greater of actual damages or $50 under section 349 and $500 under section 350, plus treble damages in the court's discretion. Those are requests in a complaint. No money has been ordered and none is available now. The case is in federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, which the complaint invokes by alleging more than $5 million is at stake across the proposed classes.
What Happens Next?
Gold Bond will have an opportunity to answer and will likely move to dismiss. Cosmetic-labeling cases of this shape usually turn on two questions: whether a reasonable consumer would actually be misled by the front of the package when the ingredient list is available on the back, and whether the specific wording is a factual claim at all or non-actionable puffery. The Kandel ruling the complaint quotes went the plaintiffs' way on the first question against a different defendant, but each case is decided on its own label and its own record.If the case survives dismissal, the parties would exchange evidence before any class-certification decision. Many proposed consumer class actions are dismissed, narrowed, or settled quietly before a payout, and there is no guarantee this one produces either a settlement or a recovery. If it ever does, class members would be notified about how to participate.
This filing sits alongside a run of personal-care labeling cases challenging what a front label promises, including the Dove hypoallergenic body wash lawsuit, the Native "unscented" deodorant lawsuit, and the Aveeno baby shampoo hypoallergenic lawsuit.
Do I Need to Do Anything Right Now?
No. There is no claim form, no deadline and no settlement fund. Nobody needs to contact the court or the company. Anyone who still has a bottle or a receipt can keep it at no cost, but nothing requires it, and holding onto proof does not create a claim where none exists yet.Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a Gold Bond settlement or claim form?No. This is a newly filed complaint, not a settlement. There is no fund, no administrator and no claim form, and no guarantee anyone ever receives money from this case.
What does the lawsuit allege?
That naming the product "Plumping Collagen" tells shoppers it contains collagen when, according to the complaint, it contains none — only Tripeptide-29, a synthetic three-amino-acid peptide listed on the label as "Collagen Amino Acids." Gold Bond has not answered these allegations and nothing has been proven.
Which products are named?
Only Gold Bond Plumping Collagen Body & Face Serum Lotion, in the 2 oz., 4.3 oz. and 8 oz. sizes. No other Gold Bond lotion, cream or powder is part of this case.
Is Tripeptide-29 the same thing as collagen?
No. It is a synthetic peptide of three amino acids — glycine, proline and hydroxyproline — that also appear in collagen, which is a far larger protein built from 19 amino acids in a triple-helix structure. The complaint's argument is that sharing three building blocks with collagen does not make an ingredient collagen.
Who owns Gold Bond?
Sanofi, which acquired the brand with Chattem in 2010 and said in October 2024 that Gold Bond was excluded from the sale of a controlling stake in its Opella consumer health business to CD&R. The complaint names only Gold Bond Co LLC, described as a North Carolina limited liability company based in New Jersey. Sanofi is not a defendant here.
Do I need to save my receipt or bottle?
There is no claim process, so nothing is required right now. Keeping a receipt or the packaging costs nothing if a settlement is ever reached, but many proposed class actions are dismissed or narrowed before any payout, and no money is available now.
Has a court decided anything?
No. A summons was issued and an initial pretrial conference was ordered in late August 2026, which are routine case-opening steps. No class has been certified and no ruling has been made on whether the labeling misleads anyone.
Sources
• Class Action Complaint, Ruiz v. Gold Bond Co LLC, No. 1:26-cv-07328-AS (S.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 27, 2026) — complaint PDF• Public docket, Ruiz v. Gold Bond Co LLC, No. 1:26-cv-07328 (S.D.N.Y.) — docket on CourtListener
• Kandel v. Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare, LLC, No. 1:23-cv-01967-ER (S.D.N.Y.) — opinions and orders on Justia
• European Commission, CosIng cosmetic ingredient database, entry for Tripeptide-29 — CosIng ingredient record
• Published ingredient list for Gold Bond Plumping Collagen Body & Face Serum Lotion, as carried on the manufacturer and retailer product pages
• Sanofi, "Sanofi and CD&R partner to fuel Opella's ambitions in consumer healthcare" (Oct. 21, 2024) — Sanofi press release
About This Page
This page summarizes the class action complaint in Ruiz v. Gold Bond Co LLC, No. 1:26-cv-07328-AS (S.D.N.Y.). OpenClassActions.com is a consumer news site and is not a law firm, the plaintiff's counsel, Gold Bond Co LLC, Sanofi, or a party to this case. The allegations in the complaint have not been proven in court. This page is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint Filed — No Settlement, No Claim Form
Case Title
Ruiz v. Gold Bond Co LLC
Case Number
1:26-cv-07328-AS
Court
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Date Filed
August 27, 2026
Defendant
Gold Bond Co LLC
Product
Gold Bond Plumping Collagen Body & Face Serum Lotion — 2 oz., 4.3 oz., 8 oz.
Claims
N.Y. GBL §§ 349 & 350 · N.Y. U.C.C. § 2-313 · fraud · negligent misrepresentation · unjust enrichment
Class Status
Not yet certified — early stage
Complaint
Read the Complaint (PDF)
Court Docket
View the Docket on CourtListener
