The buzzworthy lawsuit against e.l.f. Cosmetics is making waves among beauty shoppers and industry analysts alike, as a proposed class action accuses the brand of misleading consumers with oversized packaging containing significantly less product than expected.
The complaint, filed in California federal court in February 2025, focuses on two of e.l.f.’s best-selling products—the Holy Hydration! Gentle Peeling Exfoliant and the Glossy Lip Stain—alleging that each is sold in containers that are more than half empty, or filled with “nonfunctional slack-fill.” The lawsuit seeks to represent all California residents who purchased these specific products during the past four years, spotlighting broader packaging transparency issues in the beauty industry.
The Heart of the Allegations
Central to the complaint is e.l.f. ‘s use of opaque product packaging, which the plaintiff claims leads customers to believe they are purchasing containers filled with product from end to end. However, buyers allegedly receive much less—sometimes only about half of what the packaging suggests. For example, the Glossy Lip Stain tube is partially visible through a window in the package, but the actual beauty product does not extend the full length of the exterior box, giving shoppers a false impression that the item is almost two inches longer than reality. The lawsuit contends that even shaking or inspecting the containers would not warn a consumer about the substantial amount of slack-fill present.
Consumer Expectations and California Law
California’s robust consumer protection laws require packaging to honestly depict the quantity of product inside and prohibit “nonfunctional slack-fill”—empty space that does not serve a legitimate purpose, such as protecting the product or accommodating normal settling during shipment. Plaintiffs argue that e.l.f.’s under-filled packaging does not protect the contents of the containers, nor is it a necessary part of the presentation or a result of the items settling during shipment. Per the complaint, “Defendant [company] can easily increase the quantity of product in each container (or, alternatively, decrease the size of the containers) significantly,” thereby offering better value or clearer disclosure.
The suit claims that e.l.f. ‘s conduct violates the California Business and Professions Code, the Unfair Competition Law, and the Consumers’ Legal Remedies Act. It alleges that reasonable consumers would expect to receive a full container based on the packaging, and that the deceptive nature of slack-fill leads buyers to pay “premium prices for empty space.” One excerpt from the legal filing states: “Reasonable consumers seeking to purchase that product, over 60% of consumers report that they felt “duped” or “misled” by certain types of packaging of items that they have purchased.”
The Reality Behind “Slack-Fill”
Unlike functional slack-fill, which can be used for protecting fragile goods or for other logistical reasons, nonfunctional slack-fill is generally viewed as deceptive. In this case, the lawsuit claims there is “no legitimate or lawful reason” for the presence of excessive empty space, arguing that it misleads consumers—not only about the value but about the actual usability of the product inside opaque containers. The plaintiff’s lawyer points out that neither the Holy Hydration! Gentle Peeling Exfoliant nor the Glossy Lip Stain benefit from such packaging; instead, the company could offer the same product in smaller or clearer containers.
Industry Implications
This legal action reflects a growing demand for transparency and fairness in the cosmetics industry, as shoppers become increasingly skeptical of packaging tricks. As stated in the complaint, “Punitive damages are also sought herein based upon Defendant’s deceptive conduct, which indicates that Defendant is guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice.” If successful, the suit may not only result in restitution for affected consumers but could also set a precedent for future labeling and packaging requirements in the beauty sector. The lawsuit says, “The size of each box/container of lip gloss leads the reasonable consumer to believe he or she is purchasing a tube full of lip gloss that extends for the full length of the exterior packaging when in reality what they are actually receiving is significantly less than what is represented by the size of the containers,” underscoring consumer frustration with packaging practices. The lawsuit also highlights, “The slack-fill in the Products does not protect the contents of the packages. In fact, because the Products consist of creamy substances, there is no need to protect the Products with the slack-fill present.”
Conclusion
As the e.l.f. Cosmetics class action winds through the California court system; consumers and beauty brands alike will be watching closely. Whether the result is restitution, clearer packaging, or new regulations, this case highlights the ongoing challenges facing brands in earning—and keeping—shopper trust through honest marketing and packaging practices.
