Vegan Collagen and the Law: Clean Beauty Claims Face Legal Scrutiny, but Courts Urge Common Sense

Clean Beauty Legal Risks

Clean beauty claims have become the current "flavor of the month" for consumer class action lawsuits, particularly in California, New York, Florida, and Texas, where plaintiff's bar activity is especially robust. The phrase "vegan collagen" has emerged as a primary target for these class actions. Here is the argument that's often made: collagen is, by definition, animal-derived—so any product claiming to contain "vegan collagen" must be inherently misleading.

But that argument ignores both scientific innovation and marketing context. In the same way that "vegan burgers" replicate the experience of beef without containing meat, vegan collagen products use lab-created or biosynthetic ingredients to replicate the benefits of traditional collagen, not its source. The counter-argument is straightforward: "vegan collagen" is analogous to a "vegan burger" - a lab-manufactured alternative that serves a similar purpose without animal derivation.

This isn't the first time courts have had to grapple with this kind of linguistic and legal evolution. It's similar to the fight over "almond milk": dairy producers sued to stop plant-based beverages from using the word "milk," claiming it misled consumers. But courts—and eventually the FDA—allowed the use of such terms, provided there was appropriate context and labeling.

Similarly, while "vegan collagen" may not match a strict scientific definition of collagen, it doesn't make its use deceptive in a marketing context.

What the Courts Are Saying

While case law on this issue is still emerging, recent decisions from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York suggests courts are willing to apply common sense when evaluating these claims. In Nguyen v. Algenist LLC, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213778, the Southern District of New York dismissed a proposed class action, explicitly holding that "Plaintiff has not plausibly alleged that vegan collagen is necessarily ineffective, alone or in the context of the Products' formulas." Importantly, the court dismissed the claims without leave to amend, signaling a strong stance that "vegan collagen" is not inherently misleading.

In Lopez v. L'Oréal USA, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175306, by contrast, the court allowed a case to proceed where the marketing implied the product's collagen formulation delivered results akin to traditional collagen. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss because "it was plausible that a reasonable consumer would see the defendant's product and assume its 'COLLAGEN MOISTURE FILLER' mixture did in fact have the same benefits as real collagen." The key issue wasn't the presence of "vegan collagen," but rather the implied equivalency and lack of disclosure.

A similar theme arose in Gunaratna v. Dennis Gross Cosmetology LLC, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60796, where the court took issue not with the use of "vegan collagen" itself, but with labeling practices. The court noted that "the vegan disclaimer and accompanying text are quite small and difficult to find, located on the bottom right corner of the side of the box that otherwise is written in French." The court distinguished this from situations in which products clearly identify themselves as vegan and make no deceptive claims about equivalency.

Beyond the Science: Cultural Values Drive the Claims

 What makes this area of law especially dynamic is the cultural force behind the terminology. Clean beauty isn’t just about ingredients—it’s about identity. Today’s consumers, especially Gen Z, often buy based on alignment with personal values like sustainability, animal welfare, and ingredient transparency, and their buying decisions are influenced by terms like “vegan,” “clean,” and “non-toxic.”

This can and often does create a gap between how marketers and consumers use language and how courts interpret it. When legal definitions lag behind cultural norms, litigation may fill the void. That’s why consumer product companies—and their legal teams—must not only understand regulatory guidelines but also anticipate how evolving values can shape legal exposure.

 Conclusion

The “vegan collagen” controversy sits at the intersection of science, semantics, and shifting consumer expectations. Courts are beginning to craft a framework for evaluating these claims. Just as courts allowed the use of the term “milk” for almond and oat-based beverages, we may see growing judicial recognition that “vegan collagen” is not inherently misleading, so long as it's used with context and clarity. The developing case law in this area should give brands confidence—but not lead to complacency.

Indeed, there’s still risk, and plaintiffs are testing the boundaries of what's considered “reasonable” through litigation. Brands should remain vigilant and consult with experienced legal counsel to reduce exposure.