Published
August 23, 2026
A proposed class action filed in federal court in Manhattan accuses Procter & Gamble of selling Native Unscented Deodorant as “unscented” while its ingredient list includes ginger root extract, which the complaint calls a fragrance ingredient. It is a complaint, not a settlement — there is no fund, no claim form and nothing to file.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
This article describes a class action complaint. The statements below are unproven allegations. The Procter & Gamble Company has not been found liable, has not yet responded to the complaint, there is no certified class, and nothing to claim at this time. No product has been recalled, and no court or regulator has found Native Unscented Deodorant unsafe or mislabeled. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Is This About?
A proposed class action accuses The Procter & Gamble Company of marketing Native Unscented Deodorant as “unscented” when, according to the complaint, the product's ingredient list includes Zingiber officinale (ginger) root extract — an aromatic botanical extract the complaint describes as a fragrance ingredient. The case, Chiaravalloti v. The Procter & Gamble Company (Case No. 1:26-cv-06902, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York), was filed on August 12, 2026 by a single named plaintiff from Farmingdale, New York, represented by Fitzgerald Monroe Flynn PC and Smith Krivoshey PC.The theory is economic, not medical. Nobody claims the deodorant injured anyone. The complaint's position is that shoppers seek out unscented personal care products specifically to avoid fragrance ingredients, that they pay more for them, and that the word “unscented” on the front of the package is a promise the ingredient panel contradicts. The plaintiff says she bought the product at a Target store in New York in spring 2026 after reading the label, and would not have bought it — or would have paid less — had she known. Procter & Gamble has not yet responded, and the allegations are unproven.
Status
Complaint Filed · August 12, 2026
Chiaravalloti v. The Procter & Gamble Company · U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Product Named
Native Unscented Deodorant
The 2.65 oz stick sold under P&G's Native brand · no other Native variety is named
Core Allegation
An “unscented” label on a deodorant that lists ginger root extract
New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 · deceptive practices and false advertising
Proposed Class
New York purchasers over the last four years
Pleaded under CAFA with more than $5 million at stake · no class certified
Can I Claim?
No — nothing to claim yet
No settlement, no fund, no claim form, no deadline
The Ingredient at the Center of the Case
Everything in this complaint turns on one entry on the ingredient panel. Zingiber officinale is the botanical name for ginger, and ginger root extract is used across cosmetics and personal care both for its aroma and for its antioxidant properties.The complaint's characterization is that the extract is “an aromatic essential oil that endows products with a warm, spicy, and fresh scent,” and that it contains gingerol and shogaol — the compounds responsible for ginger's pungency — which the complaint says can cause contact dermatitis and skin sensitivity in some people. On that reading, an ingredient added at least partly for how it smells is a fragrance ingredient regardless of the label term used, and a product containing it cannot honestly be called unscented.
Two things the complaint does not allege are worth noting, because they narrow the case considerably. It does not allege the deodorant smells noticeably of ginger. And it does not allege the ingredient list is inaccurate or incomplete — the extract is disclosed. The claim is that the front-of-package word contradicts the back-of-package panel, and that a shopper reading the front should not have to work out that a Latin botanical name signals a scent ingredient.
“Unscented” Is Not a Regulated Word
The gap the case is built on is real, and it is not specific to Native. Neither “unscented” nor “fragrance-free” is defined in federal cosmetics regulation. The FDA's own consumer guidance on fragrances in cosmetics says plainly that some products labeled unscented may still contain fragrance ingredients, added in amounts meant to mask the smell of other ingredients rather than to give the product a scent of its own.That cuts both ways in litigation. It supports the plaintiff's framing that shoppers who want fragrance out of their routine cannot rely on the word — which is the harm the complaint describes. It also supports a defense argument that the industry meaning of “unscented” has never been “contains no aromatic ingredient,” but rather “has no perceptible scent,” and that a reasonable consumer does not read it as an ingredient guarantee.
Which of those a court adopts is the whole case. New York consumer protection claims are judged by what a reasonable consumer acting reasonably would understand, so the question is not what a chemist knows about ginger extract — it is what the word promises to a shopper standing in the deodorant aisle.
The Price Premium Argument
Because there is no injury claim, the complaint has to show that buyers lost money. It does that with a price comparison drawn from the two products' shelf prices, arguing that the unscented stick costs more per ounce than a scented Native variety:| Product | Size | Price | Price Per Ounce |
|---|---|---|---|
| Native Sea Salt & Cedar Deodorant | 3.1 oz | $13.47 | $4.35 |
| Native Unscented Deodorant | 2.65 oz | $13.99 | $5.28 |
The complaint uses that roughly 21 percent per-ounce gap as evidence that the unscented positioning carries a premium, and asks the court to treat the difference between what buyers paid and what the product was allegedly worth as the measure of damages. Whether a two-product comparison is enough to establish a class-wide premium is a standard fight in this category — defendants typically respond that pack sizes, formulations and retailer pricing differ for reasons unrelated to the label claim, and that proving a premium takes a proper economic analysis rather than two shelf tags.
What the Lawsuit Claims and Seeks
The complaint pleads two counts, both under New York law:• New York General Business Law § 349, which prohibits deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of business.
• New York General Business Law § 350, the false advertising provision, which covers labeling that is misleading in a material respect.
It asks the court to certify the class and appoint the named plaintiff as class representative, to declare the conduct unlawful, and to award actual, compensatory, statutory and punitive damages in amounts to be set by the court or a jury, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs. A jury trial is demanded. All of that is relief requested on unproven allegations; nothing has been awarded, and no court has decided any of it.
One drafting detail is worth flagging. Although the complaint's common-questions list asks whether the defendant “was unjustly enriched by its unlawful practices,” no separate unjust enrichment count is actually pleaded — the case rests on the two statutory claims. That kind of leftover is common in class pleadings and does not change what is at stake, but it does mean the New York statutes carry the whole case.
Who Would Be Covered by the Proposed Class?
As pleaded, the class is everyone in the State of New York who bought Native Unscented Deodorant for personal or household use during the last four years. The complaint reserves the right to expand or narrow that definition later, and estimates membership in the hundreds of thousands.Note what the definition leaves out. This is a single-state class and a single-product case — it is not a nationwide class, and it does not reach Native's scented varieties, its body wash and other line extensions, or the other unscented deodorants on the market. No class has been certified, and class definitions routinely change during litigation or never get tested at all because the case is resolved earlier.
What Procter & Gamble Is Likely to Argue
P&G has not filed a response, so this is not its position — but the defenses in this category are well established, and readers weighing the complaint should know what is coming.Expect a motion to dismiss built on some combination of: that a reasonable consumer understands “unscented” to mean the product has no noticeable smell, not that it contains no aromatic ingredient, with support from the FDA's own acknowledgement that unscented products may contain masking fragrance; that the complaint never alleges the product actually smells of ginger, which is the only way the label could mislead anyone in practice; that ginger root extract is disclosed on the panel a shopper can read; that a botanical extract used in a small quantity is not a “fragrance ingredient” in the sense the complaint uses the term; and that a two-item shelf-price comparison does not plausibly establish a price premium attributable to the word “unscented.”
The plaintiff's answer to the ingredient-list defense is already in the pleading: it invokes the Second Circuit's decision in Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., which held that reasonable consumers should not be expected to look past a misleading front-of-package statement to find the truth in the small print on the side. That case has become the standard opening move in front-label food and cosmetics suits filed in New York, and how much work it does here will depend on whether the court sees “unscented” as a factual representation about contents or as a description of the product's smell.
Is There a Settlement or Claim Form?
No. This is a lawsuit at the complaint stage, not a settlement.That means:
• There is no settlement fund.
• There is no claim form.
• There is no payout and no deadline to act.
• You do not need to register, sign up, or contact anyone.
For money to reach any purchaser, the case would have to survive P&G's expected motion to dismiss, win class certification, and then settle or prevail at trial. That takes years and frequently does not happen — front-label consumer cases are dismissed at the pleading stage often enough that a filing is not a prediction of a payout. If you have receipts or store loyalty records for the product, keeping them is reasonable, but nothing is required. Be cautious of any site claiming you can file a Native deodorant claim today.
What Happens Next
The docket is still in its opening days. The complaint, civil cover sheet and corporate disclosure statement were filed August 12, 2026, and the clerk issued the summons on August 14, 2026 — so P&G's deadline to answer or move runs from service, and nothing substantive has been filed by either side.P&G's response is the next milestone, and a motion to dismiss is the likely form it takes. If the case survives, it moves into discovery — where the questions become why ginger root extract is in the formulation, what function P&G's own records say it performs, and what the company's consumer research shows about how shoppers read the word “unscented” — and then to a class certification motion.
It is also worth watching whether other filings follow. Legal trade press has reported that a separate suit challenging Native's “72-hour odor protection” advertising was dismissed, so this is not the brand's first advertising challenge, and P&G is a repeat defendant in consumer labeling litigation across its portfolio — from a greenwashing case over Charmin sustainability claims to a Tampax lead-contamination case. Personal care labeling more broadly keeps drawing suits, including the Schick Hydro Silk pink-tax complaint over women's and men's razors.
OpenClassActions.com will watch the docket and update this page on a ruling, a certification decision, or a settlement with a claim form.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a Native deodorant settlement or claim form?
No. This is a newly filed class action complaint, not a settlement. There is no settlement fund, no claim form, no payout and no deadline to act. Procter & Gamble has not been found liable, no class has been certified, and there is nothing to claim at this time.
What does the lawsuit allege?
That Native Unscented Deodorant is marketed as unscented even though its ingredient list includes Zingiber officinale (ginger) root extract, which the complaint describes as an aromatic fragrance ingredient. It brings claims under New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350 on behalf of New York purchasers. These are unproven allegations and Procter & Gamble has not yet responded.
Does “unscented” legally mean fragrance-free?
No. Neither term is defined by federal cosmetics regulation, and the FDA's own consumer guidance says some products labeled unscented may contain fragrance ingredients used to mask the smell of other ingredients. That gap is what the complaint asks a court to resolve, as a question of what a reasonable consumer understands the word to promise.
Is Native owned by Procter & Gamble?
Yes. P&G acquired the Native deodorant brand in November 2017 and sells it alongside Secret, Old Spice and Gillette. The complaint names The Procter & Gamble Company, an Ohio corporation based in Cincinnati, as the sole defendant.
Is the product unsafe or being recalled?
Nothing in the complaint says so. This is an economic case about labeling and price, not a safety or personal injury case. No plaintiff claims the product caused illness or injury, no product has been recalled, and no regulator or court has found it unsafe. The complaint does say ginger root extract can cause contact dermatitis in some people, but the money it seeks is for the alleged price premium.
Who would be covered by the proposed class?
Everyone in New York State who bought Native Unscented Deodorant for personal or household use during the last four years. It is a single-state, single-product class — it does not cover scented Native varieties or purchasers outside New York. No class has been certified, so the definition is not final.
What should I do if I bought this deodorant?
Nothing is required and there is nothing to file. If the case ever produces a settlement, a court-approved administrator would announce it and any claim process publicly. Keeping receipts or store loyalty records is reasonable but not necessary at this stage.
Sources
• Chiaravalloti v. The Procter & Gamble Company — Class Action Complaint, No. 1:26-cv-06902 (S.D.N.Y., filed August 12, 2026).• CourtListener — Chiaravalloti v. Procter & Gamble Company docket, No. 1:26-cv-06902 (S.D.N.Y.)
• FDA — Fragrances in Cosmetics
• Native — Unscented Deodorant product page and ingredient list
• CNBC — P&G has acquired Native natural deodorant brand (Nov. 15, 2017)
• Justia — Mantikas v. Kellogg Co., 910 F.3d 633 (2d Cir. 2018)
• Law360 — Native Company Escapes Deodorant False Ad Claims
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.
For more class actions keep scrolling below.
Status
Complaint Filed — Allegations Only
Case Title
Chiaravalloti v. The Procter & Gamble Company
Case Number
1:26-cv-06902
Court
U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Date Filed
August 12, 2026
Nature of Suit
370 Other Fraud · diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 · jury demanded by plaintiff
Defendant
The Procter & Gamble Company (Native brand)
Product
Native Unscented Deodorant, 2.65 oz stick
Claims
New York GBL § 349 (deceptive acts and practices); New York GBL § 350 (false advertising)
Class Pleaded
New York purchasers for personal or household use, last four years
Plaintiff Counsel
Fitzgerald Monroe Flynn PC; Smith Krivoshey PC
Official Court Source
CourtListener Docket
