The Native lawsuit is not one case. It’s two separate legal battles, with very different outcomes, all tied to the same “clean beauty” brand.
One lawsuit, targeting Native’s deodorant spray, was filed in federal court in June 2024 and dismissed by a federal judge in April 2025. The other, a PFAS investigation into Native shampoo and body wash, was closed by attorneys in May 2025 after insufficient evidence was found to move forward.
Both cases matter. They tell you a lot about what “natural” on a label actually means, and what legal protections consumers do or do not have when a brand’s marketing doesn’t match reality.
This article breaks down both cases, explains who’s involved, and tells you exactly where things stand in 2026.
What Is the Native Lawsuit?
The Native lawsuit refers to legal actions targeting Procter & Gamble’s Native personal care brand over allegedly deceptive product claims.
There are two distinct cases most people are searching for. The first is a class action lawsuit filed in June 2024 against Zenlen Inc. (Native’s operating entity), alleging the brand’s deodorant spray falsely claimed to provide “clinically proven 72-hour odor protection.” The second is an attorney-led investigation into whether Native shampoo and body wash products contained PFAS, despite being marketed as “clean” and “naturally derived.”
These cases are connected by a common thread. Both challenge the gap between what Native promises on its labels and what consumers actually get.
| Case | Product | Filed/Opened | Current Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hernandez v. Zenlen Inc. | Deodorant spray | June 26, 2024 | Dismissed April 9, 2025 |
| PFAS Investigation | Shampoo, body wash | Opened 2022 | Closed May 14, 2025 |
Understanding both cases separately is the only way to get a clear picture of the legal situation around Native in 2026.
Native Deodorant Lawsuit: The 72-Hour Odor Protection Claim
The Native deodorant lawsuit was a proposed class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on June 26, 2024.
Plaintiffs Ashton Hernandez and Andrew Smyrak accused Zenlen Inc. of false advertising. Their core claim: Native’s whole-body deodorant spray marketed itself as providing “clinically proven 72-hour odor protection,” but no clinical study ever actually confirmed that.
The plaintiffs weren’t just angry about smelling bad after a day. They argued Native’s unproven claim let the brand charge over 100% more than competitors for a product that performed no better.
- The deodorant spray sold for approximately $14 per bottle at Target, CVS, Walmart, Walgreens, and Amazon.
- Competitors without a “72-hour” claim sold for significantly less.
- The lawsuit alleged violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350.
Key Takeaway: The Native deodorant lawsuit centered on price-gouging through an unproven performance claim, not just a mislabeled ingredient.
Procter and Gamble Native Lawsuit: Who Is Actually Being Sued?
The Procter and Gamble Native lawsuit involves P&G indirectly, through its subsidiary Zenlen Inc., which operates the Native brand.
P&G acquired Native in November 2017 for a reported $100 million. Before that purchase, Native was a small San Francisco startup founded in 2015 by a Harvard graduate aiming to create deodorant from natural ingredients. After P&G’s acquisition, Native expanded into shampoo, conditioner, body wash, sunscreen, and toothpaste.
This ownership structure matters legally. Zenlen Inc. is the named defendant in the deodorant class action, not P&G directly. But P&G’s corporate resources, regulatory infrastructure, and advertising decisions are all part of the context behind both cases.
| Entity | Role |
|---|---|
| Procter & Gamble (P&G) | Parent company; acquired Native in 2017 |
| Zenlen Inc. (dba Native Cos.) | Legal operating entity; named defendant |
| Ashton Hernandez / Andrew Smyrak | Named plaintiffs in deodorant lawsuit |
| Denlea & Carton LLP / Kravit Smith LLP | Law firms representing plaintiffs |
When consumers think they’re suing “Native,” they’re actually targeting Zenlen Inc., a subsidiary of one of the largest consumer goods corporations on the planet.
Native Deodorant False Advertising: What the Complaint Said
The Native deodorant false advertising claim had three main pillars, each attacking a different part of the brand’s marketing.
First, the complaint said Native’s “clinically proven” label statement was flat-out false. According to the plaintiffs, no clinical study had ever tested whether the deodorant prevented odor for three consecutive days. Second, the suit argued that Native simply copied the “72-hour protection” claim from competitor products in the market and slapped “clinically proven” on top to justify a premium price. Third, the complaint pointed directly to a contradiction on the product’s own label.
The instructions on the deodorant spray told users to apply it in the morning and “repeat as needed throughout the day.” The plaintiffs argued that wording directly undercut any claim that one application lasts 72 hours.
- The complaint was filed under New York consumer protection law.
- Advertising reached consumers via social media, TV commercials, and online ads.
- The lawsuit sought class-wide damages for all buyers deceived by the claim.
Think of it like a restaurant advertising “all-day breakfast” but closing the kitchen at 10 a.m. The menu says one thing; the reality says another.
Key Takeaway: The deodorant false advertising claim was built on internal contradictions in Native’s own marketing and product instructions, not just consumer complaints.
Native 72-Hour Odor Protection Claim: Was It Ever Tested?
The 72-hour odor protection claim was at the center of whether Native had any clinical proof backing its advertising.
When the lawsuit was first filed, the plaintiffs alleged Native had “never” conducted clinical testing on the product. That argument ran into a problem during early legal proceedings. Zenlen’s legal team produced a heavily redacted document purporting to show evidence of a clinical study had, in fact, been conducted. This forced the plaintiffs to shift their argument.
Instead of arguing “no test ever happened,” they pivoted to arguing the test that did happen was “incomprehensible” and didn’t actually prove 72-hour odor elimination. They claimed the study only showed reduced odor compared to wearing no deodorant at all, not 72 hours of complete protection.
| Plaintiff Argument | Court’s Response |
|---|---|
| “No testing was ever done” | Contradicted by Zenlen’s redacted study document |
| “The study was too flawed to count” | Court: “A test, even if flawed, is still a test” |
| “Study only showed odor reduction, not elimination” | Court found this claim implausible for average consumers |
The court found the plaintiffs couldn’t have it both ways. Acknowledging a study existed while simultaneously claiming no testing occurred was a fatal contradiction in their complaint.
Native Lawsuit Dismissed 2025: What the Judge Actually Decided
The Native lawsuit dismissal came on April 9, 2025, when U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote granted Zenlen’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety.
Judge Cote’s nine-page opinion identified three core problems with the plaintiffs’ case. The complaint was internally contradictory. It made claims not adequately supported by specific facts. And the plaintiffs tried to introduce new legal arguments through their opposition brief, which courts do not allow.
The ruling came after Zenlen filed a renewed motion to dismiss on January 31, 2025, arguing the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege materially misleading conduct under New York law. The court agreed completely.
Critically, Judge Cote noted that a reasonable consumer would not expect “72-hour odor protection” to mean they’d be completely odor-free for three full days under all conditions. That interpretation, the court found, was too far removed from how average people understand marketing language.
- Case name: Hernandez v. Zenlen, Inc.
- Case number: 1:24-cv-04846
- Court: U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
- Decision date: April 9, 2025
- Outcome: Dismissed with prejudice (amended complaint)
The case as filed is over. No settlement was reached. No class was certified.
Key Takeaway: The Native deodorant lawsuit was dismissed because the plaintiffs’ own complaint contradicted itself on the central question of whether clinical testing had occurred.
Native Shampoo Lawsuit: What Sparked the Investigation
The Native shampoo lawsuit story began not in court, but on social media.
In early 2024, a wave of posts appeared on TikTok and Reddit from users claiming significant hair loss after switching to Native shampoo products. One user, widely shared across platforms, reported visible hair thinning after using Native’s curly hair shampoo. Reddit threads piled up with similar accounts, ranging from mild scalp dryness to severe shedding.
These reports weren’t just viral complaints. They caught the attention of consumer rights attorneys at ClassAction.org, who began reviewing whether a formal case could be built around two main claims: first, that Native products contained PFAS chemicals never disclosed on the label; second, that selling a product with hidden synthetic chemicals while branding it “clean” and “naturally derived” amounts to false advertising.
- The investigation specifically targeted products including the Cucumber & Mint Shampoo, Powder & Cotton Body Wash, and Citrus & Herbal Musk Deodorant.
- The investigation was formally opened in 2022 and actively updated through early 2025.
- No formal class action lawsuit was ever filed against Native shampoo.
It’s worth knowing the difference between an attorney investigation and a filed lawsuit. An investigation is a screening process. Filing a lawsuit means evidence cleared the bar.
Native PFAS Investigation: What Are “Forever Chemicals”?
PFAS stands for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a group of thousands of man-made chemicals that don’t break down in the environment or the human body, which is why they’re called “forever chemicals.”
Exposure to PFAS has been linked by federal researchers to a range of health problems. These include kidney cancer, thyroid disease, reproductive issues, immune system disruption, and elevated blood pressure. The concern in the Native investigation was straightforward: if a brand markets products as “clean,” “simple,” and “naturally derived” while those products contain PFAS, that’s a potential deception of consumers who paid a premium specifically to avoid those chemicals.
PFAS have been found in everything from non-stick cookpans and raincoats to fast-food packaging and drinking water. Their presence in personal care products became a major regulatory issue.
| PFAS Fast Facts | |
|---|---|
| Full name | Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances |
| Number of PFAS chemicals | More than 12,000 types |
| Health concerns linked | Cancer, thyroid disease, immune disruption |
| California cosmetics ban | Effective January 1, 2025 |
| FDA PFAS cosmetics report | Expected December 2025 |
California’s PFAS ban on cosmetics, which took effect on January 1, 2025, added regulatory urgency to the entire clean beauty industry, not just Native.
Forever Chemicals in Native Shampoo: What the Testing Showed
Independent testing produced a mixed picture, and that’s what ultimately mattered to the attorneys investigating the case.
Mamavation, an independent consumer safety organization, conducted its own lab testing on deodorants and personal care products purchased between February 2023 and February 2024. Their test of Native Deodorant in Coconut & Vanilla returned a non-detect result for organic fluorine, meaning no evidence of PFAS was found in that specific product at that time.
Other brands in the same natural deodorant category showed measurable fluorine levels in Mamavation’s tests. Native came out relatively clean in that particular round of testing.
The Environmental Working Group (EWG) also gave many Native products favorable Skin Deep ratings prior to the investigation. Native products scored between 1 and 5 on EWG’s 10-point scale, where lower scores indicate fewer hazard concerns.
These results complicated the PFAS case significantly. Attorneys reviewing the investigation found insufficient evidence to move forward with litigation. On May 14, 2025, ClassAction.org officially updated the page with the status: “Investigation Closed.”
Key Takeaway: Despite viral fear around PFAS in Native products, independent testing found no PFAS in Native deodorant specifically, and attorneys ultimately concluded there wasn’t enough evidence to file a class action.
Native Hair Loss Claims: What Consumers Reported
Thousands of consumers reported hair loss after using Native shampoo, but the legal bar for connecting product use to documented harm proved difficult to clear.
The most common complaints reported online included excessive hair shedding after switching to Native’s shampoo lines, scalp dryness or flakiness that worsened over time, breakage and changes in hair texture, and in some cases, burning or irritation on sensitive scalps. Many of these users had specifically chosen Native because they believed it was safer than conventional shampoos, which made the reported reactions feel like a deeper betrayal of trust.
Consumer attorneys noted the pattern. Social media volume alone doesn’t create a lawsuit. Lawyers screening potential claims need medical records, lab data, causation evidence, and a mechanism connecting a specific product ingredient to a specific documented harm.
- Reported symptoms included shedding, scalp irritation, and texture loss.
- No peer-reviewed study has confirmed Native shampoo causes hair loss.
- The investigation into hair loss claims was wrapped into the broader PFAS probe and closed alongside it in May 2025.
Hair loss from product use is notoriously difficult to prove in court. There are dozens of potential causes, and isolating one shampoo as the culprit requires rigorous evidence that consumer reports alone cannot provide.
Who Qualifies for the Native Lawsuit?
As of 2026, there is no active class action settlement that consumers can join for either the Native deodorant case or the Native shampoo investigation.
The deodorant class action (Case No. 1:24-cv-04846) was dismissed on April 9, 2025, before a class was ever certified. No settlement fund was created. No claims process was opened. The shampoo PFAS investigation was closed on May 14, 2025, without a lawsuit ever being filed.
That means there is currently no settlement to join, no claim form to submit, and no payout coming from either case.
| Case | Status | Can You File a Claim? |
|---|---|---|
| Deodorant (Hernandez v. Zenlen) | Dismissed April 2025 | No |
| Shampoo PFAS Investigation | Closed May 2025 | No |
If a new lawsuit is filed in the future, eligibility would likely apply to consumers who purchased specific Native products within a defined date range. Keep receipts, product packaging, and photos of any adverse reactions. These records matter if a case does eventually proceed.
Key Takeaway: No active Native class action exists in 2026. Both legal actions ended before any consumer compensation was authorized.
Native Class Action Settlement Update 2026
There is no Native class action settlement in 2026. Both cases have been resolved without compensation to consumers.
The deodorant lawsuit was dismissed on procedural and substantive grounds by Judge Cote in April 2025. The PFAS shampoo investigation was voluntarily closed by attorneys in May 2025 after finding the evidence insufficient to support a viable claim.
The broader legal picture for the Native brand does include one non-lawsuit action worth knowing about. In June 2024, the National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs reviewed Native’s advertising claims following a challenge filed by SC Johnson (maker of the Method brand). The NAD ruled that P&G must modify or discontinue Native’s “simple ingredients” claim for deodorants, body washes, lotions, and shampoos. P&G was also ordered to discontinue the “Born in the USA” claim. These were advertising self-regulatory decisions, not court judgments, but they reflect real accountability.
- NAD ruling date: June 27, 2024
- Challenger: SC Johnson & Son Inc.
- Outcome: P&G ordered to drop “simple ingredients” and “Born in the USA” claims
- Court involvement: None; NAD rulings are industry self-regulation
No appeal of the deodorant dismissal has been publicly announced. Attorneys could theoretically file a new, better-constructed complaint. Whether that happens depends on whether a legal team believes the evidentiary issues that sank the first case can be overcome.
As of July 4, 2026, there is no confirmed new legal activity in either Native case beyond what’s outlined above. Court records show the Hernandez v. Zenlen deodorant lawsuit remains closed, with judgment entered for the defendant on April 9, 2025, and no appeal on file. ClassAction.org’s case tracker for Zenlen, Inc. still lists only that original 2024 filing, marked dismissed, with no new Native-specific filings added since. The PFAS shampoo investigation also remains closed, and no lawsuit has been filed against Native shampoo or body wash products to date.
Last updated: July 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Was the Native deodorant lawsuit dismissed?
Yes, the Native deodorant lawsuit was dismissed on April 9, 2025. U.S. District Judge Denise L. Cote ruled the plaintiffs’ complaint was internally contradictory and lacked the factual support needed to survive dismissal. The case, Hernandez v. Zenlen Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-04846, ended without a settlement or class certification.
Is there a current class action lawsuit against Native shampoo?
No active class action lawsuit against Native shampoo exists as of 2026. Attorneys opened a PFAS investigation in 2022, but formally closed it on May 14, 2025, after finding insufficient evidence to file a case. No claims process, no settlement fund, and no court filing resulted from the investigation.
What are PFAS and why do they matter in personal care products?
PFAS are man-made chemicals linked to cancer, immune disruption, and reproductive harm. They’re called “forever chemicals” because they don’t break down in the body or the environment over time. Their presence in products marketed as “clean” or “natural” is the core of why attorneys investigated Native in the first place.
Who owns Native deodorant and shampoo?
Native is owned by Procter & Gamble, which acquired the brand in November 2017 for a reported $100 million. The legal operating entity is Zenlen Inc., doing business as Native Cos., which is the entity named in court filings. P&G has expanded Native from a deodorant brand into shampoo, conditioner, body wash, sunscreen, and toothpaste.
What should I do if I experienced hair loss after using Native shampoo?
Document your experience with photos, dates, and any receipts or packaging you still have. See a dermatologist to rule out other causes and get a professional assessment on record. Monitor legal news sources for any new filings against Native, as a future case could open a claims process.
Both Native legal actions are over. For now.
The deodorant case was thrown out after the complaint contradicted itself. The shampoo PFAS probe closed after investigators couldn’t find the evidence they needed. That doesn’t mean Native’s marketing history is clean. The NAD forced P&G to drop real advertising claims.
If you bought Native products and feel misled, document everything. Save receipts. Track your symptoms. A new lawsuit could still emerge. When it does, preparation is what gets you to the front of the line.
