Unilever’s Dove brand is facing fresh legal scrutiny over its retinol body wash range, with a new class action lawsuit alleging the products cannot deliver the anti-aging benefits highlighted in their marketing because they are designed to be rinsed off almost immediately. Filed in the New York federal court, the case challenges both how retinol works in skincare and how far beauty brands can lean on its reputation in rinse-off formulas.
What the Dove lawsuit claims
Plaintiff Rozaliya Ripa filed the complaint against Unilever United States Inc. on December 3, 2025, alleging violations of state and federal consumer protection laws. The lawsuit targets Dove-branded “retinol” skin cleansers, including body wash, body cleanser, and body polish, which are marketed as providing the well-known benefits of retinol.
Retinol, a vitamin A derivative, is widely used in cosmetic products for its potential anti-aging benefits, such as smoother texture and reduced appearance of fine lines. But Ripa argues that Dove’s rinse-off cleansers cannot realistically deliver those effects because they are washed away moments after application.
How retinol is supposed to work
According to the complaint, retinol must stay on the skin for a meaningful period to undergo biological conversion to retinoic acid, the active form that interacts with skin cells. Leave-on serums and creams are typically formulated with this longer contact time in mind, allowing retinol to penetrate and begin that conversion process.
By contrast, Dove’s retinol body wash products are designed to be lathered on and rinsed off in the shower, which Ripa says does not give retinol enough time to work. The suit states that “washing off retinol moments after application means the retinol will not and cannot provide the advertised benefits,” framing the claimed anti-aging results as scientifically implausible for a product that requires only a quick rinse.
Allegations about stability and handling
The lawsuit goes further, arguing that even if retinol could theoretically provide some benefit in a rinse off format, strict handling is required for it to remain stable. Retinol is known to be sensitive to light, heat, and air, and Ripa claims it must be “properly packaged, shipped, and stored” to preserve efficacy.
She alleges that Unilever fails to meet these conditions across the supply chain, leading to Dove retinol body wash products that are ineffective by the time they reach bathroom shelves. Taken together, the contact time and stability arguments are presented as proof that consumers are paying a premium for “retinol” benefits they never actually receive.
Legal theories and class scope
Ripa is seeking to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased one or more Dove retinol body wash rinse off cleansers in the United States. She is suing for violations of New York consumer protection laws, unjust enrichment, and related claims, and is asking the court for class certification, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial.
The case is captioned Ripa v. Unilever United States Inc., Case No. 1:25 cv 10028, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. If certified, the class could cover a large number of shoppers given Dove’s scale and the popularity of its body wash franchise.
Unilever’s wider litigation backdrop
The article notes that Unilever is simultaneously facing another class action lawsuit over its Vaseline Baby Healing Jelly, which is marketed as hypoallergenic while allegedly containing fragrance chemicals that can trigger allergic reactions. That separate case, like the Dove complaint, challenges the gap between brand promises on pack and what plaintiffs say the formulas actually deliver.
What this means for beauty brands and shoppers
If the Dove retinol body wash lawsuit advances, it could set an important precedent around how brands use dermatology-heavy ingredients in wash-off formats. A ruling in favor of the plaintiff might push companies to either tone down performance claims for rinse-off actives like retinol, or reformulate and substantiate those claims with robust testing.
For shoppers, the case is a reminder to look beyond hero ingredient callouts and consider how a product is used — including whether it stays on the skin long enough to reasonably provide the promised benefits. As lawsuits like this play out, beauty marketing around actives, especially in body care, may become more conservative and more closely aligned with what the underlying science can support.
