FirstAlerts

Dr. Squatch agrees to $9 million settlement over "natural" product claims

The personal care brand has consented to a $9 million class-action settlement over allegations it advertised products as natural while they contained synthetic ingredients, according to Fox 5 NY.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Sep 10, 2026, 1:03 p.m. ETWritten Sep 10, 2026, 10:33 p.m. ET
Dr. Squatch, LLC has agreed to pay $9 million to settle a class-action lawsuit alleging the personal care brand falsely advertised its soaps, shampoos, deodorants and other products as "natural" when they contained synthetic ingredients, Fox 5 NY reported. The lawsuit, filed in California Superior Court, alleged that Dr. Squatch misled consumers by labeling its products as natural while including synthetic components, according to Fox 5 NY. The case is a matter, and the resolution is a settlement, the outlet reported. The settlement figure of $9 million and the allegations are as reported by Fox 5 NY; no further details of the agreement were available in the account.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 111 Sept 2026, 02:33current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.