Stay ADvised: Connecticut Leads on Kids—From Cosmetic Marketing to AI Safety
In This Issue:
- Sephora Agrees to Youth-Focused Skincare Safeguards After Connecticut AG Inquiry; Enforcement Aligns with NAD Inquiries
- 'Hungry for MORE' Fees: Domino's Sued Over Alleged "Tax 2" Alleged Junk Fee
- NAD Finds Fertility Framing Turns "Support" Claims into High-Bar Performance Claims
Sephora Agrees to Youth-Focused Skincare Safeguards After Connecticut AG Inquiry; Enforcement Aligns with NAD Inquiries
Sephora has agreed to implement new safeguards relating to the marketing and sale of certain skincare products to younger consumers, resolving an inquiry by the Connecticut Attorney General into whether the retailer's practices exposed children to products that may be inappropriate for their age.
The inquiry—initiated in November 2024—focused on how Sephora's website and search functionality surfaced products in response to queries like "children" and "gift for a child," including products formulated with ingredients such as retinol and exfoliating acids typically associated with adult skincare and potentially harmful to children. The Attorney General raised concerns that these practices could mislead consumers or fail to adequately communicate age-appropriateness, particularly where brands themselves caution against use by younger consumers.
Without admitting wrongdoing, Sephora agreed to adopt a series of forward-looking measures, including:
- Requiring all brands that supply it with skincare products to provide Sephora with all warnings and disclaimers about the suitability of their products for children under the age of 13;
- Clearly and conspicuously disclose these warnings and disclaimers on all pages where such products are sold on its website;
- Require all employees who assist consumers to be trained to identify products that may not be suitable for children under 13 and provide appropriate information concerning the manufacturers' warnings and disclaimers; and
- Maintain a resource that is clearly and conspicuously disclosed on its website that informs consumers of products that may not be suitable for children under 13.
Notably, the resolution does not include monetary penalties but instead focuses on operational and disclosure-based changes—underscoring a growing regulatory emphasis on consumer protection guardrails in youth-facing categories.
In its letter initiating the inquiry, the attorney general sought information on advertising of products to kids that arose when running searches like "children" and "gift for a child." At the time, the attorney general said these searches brought up results like Drunk Elephant's "Itty Bitty Midi Committee," featuring products containing ingredients such as glycolic acid and marketed with anti-aging messaging like "fine lines and wrinkles" and "loss of firmness and elasticity." These are the types of products the AG warned may be inappropriate for younger users and can pose risks to developing skin, including irritation and damage. The letter further noted that, in some instances, Sephora failed to surface brand-level warnings that the same products were not intended for children.
Notably, the CT Attorney General is not the only one concerned about beauty messaging to young women and girls. NAD scrutinized Drunk Elephant's youth-facing safety messaging in late 2024. In that case, NAD concluded that the company had a reasonable basis to support claims that certain products were "safe for kids and tweens" based on cosmetic safety standards, even where those products were not specifically tested on children. However, NAD required discontinuation of stronger efficacy and performance claims tied to acne, breakouts, skin texture, and dark spots.
The Sephora matter also aligns with recent NAD and CARU scrutiny of beauty marketing directed at younger audiences, including the Bubble Beauty decision from March 2025. There, NAD emphasized that beauty advertising increasingly reaches tweens and teens "at a time when their self-image is vulnerable," reinforcing the need for heightened care in claim substantiation and messaging. In that case, NAD and CARU were particularly focused not just on express claims, but on implied messages conveyed through social media interactions and brand engagement with child users, concluding that such conduct can signal product appropriateness for children even absent explicit claims.
Key Takeaways
For stakeholders considering how to make sense of CT AG and NAD/CARU enforcement, consider this:
- Retailers and platforms are increasingly in the crosshairs—not just brands. Sephora's role as a retailer and curator (including through search functionality and product display) was central to the inquiry. Although focusing on a retailer, the CT AG effectively imposed requirements on the supplier brands as well.
- "Net impression" extends beyond express claims. Search results, product names, merchandising, and social engagement may all contribute to implied messages regarding suitability for children.
- No-penalty resolutions still carry meaningful compliance consequences. Structural commitments such as training, disclosures, and supplier requirements can significantly alter marketing practices even absent monetary relief.
- Safety and efficacy remain distinct substantiation questions. As the Drunk Elephant and Bubble decisions demonstrate, a company may be able to support certain safety representations while still lacking adequate support for stronger efficacy or performance claims directed at younger consumers.
'Hungry for MORE' Fees: Domino's Sued Over Alleged "Tax 2" Alleged Junk Fee
A putative class action filed in California federal court targets Domino's pricing practices, alleging that the company and certain franchisees charged consumers undisclosed mandatory fees disguised as a second "tax."
According to the complaint, Domino's advertised menu prices that did not include all mandatory charges and then added a separate line item falsely listed as "Tax 2" at checkout—purportedly a fee used to offset business expenses rather than a government-imposed tax. The plaintiff claims this practice violates California's Honest Pricing Act (SB 478), which requires that advertised prices include all mandatory fees other than government-imposed taxes.
The complaint centers on an in-store purchase in which the plaintiff allegedly relied on menu pricing but was charged an additional amount at checkout labeled "Tax 2," which plaintiff claims increased the total price by roughly 6% beyond the advertised subtotal. The plaintiff further alleges that labeling the fee as a "tax" misled consumers into believing it was a mandatory government charge rather than a fee retained by the business.
The lawsuit also seeks to hold Domino's liable for franchisee conduct, alleging that the company exercises centralized control over pricing requirements and point-of-sale systems, including how fees are calculated, labeled, and presented to consumers. The complaint points to Domino's franchise disclosure documents, which allegedly reserve authority over pricing parameters and prescribe the computer systems used to process transactions.
The plaintiff additionally relies heavily on California Attorney General guidance interpreting SB 478, including guidance stating that businesses generally cannot exclude mandatory charges used to cover operational costs from advertised or listed prices.
Key Takeaways
- "All-in pricing" litigation is accelerating. Plaintiffs are actively testing SB 478 by challenging any gap between an advertised price and final checkout price, particularly where fees are added late in the transaction.
- The patchwork is getting real. A growing number of states and localities are enacting "junk fee" laws. Some (like California) include carveouts or tailored rules for restaurants, while others apply more broadly or take different approaches to disclosure and all-in pricing. While the core principle of most states' laws is disclosure of mandatory fees, stakeholders will want to be clear on the nuances, exceptions, and enforcement.
- For restaurants, disclosure—not just inclusion—is the battleground. Because restaurants received a carveout under California's SB 1524, the key issue going forward will often be whether fees are "clear and conspicuous," not simply whether they exist. The Domino's complaint attempts to sidestep that defense by alleging the fee was not disclosed on menus at all and was affirmatively mislabeled as a government tax.
For more of our coverage on the evolving junk fee landscape, see here, here, and here.
NAD Finds Fertility Framing Turns "Support" Claims into High-Bar Performance Claims
In a challenge brought by OLLY, NAD took issue with Bayer's advertising for its One A Day® Men's Pre-Conception Health Complete Multivitamin, finding that, among other things, fertility-focused positioning conveyed outcomes the evidence did not support.
Although Bayer framed its claims as structure/function messages, e.g., "supports healthy sperm," NAD focused on how the claims would be understood in context—including the product name ("Pre-Conception"), "trying to conceive" messaging, and the recommendation to take the product for three months before conception. In context, NAD concluded the advertising reasonably conveyed that the product improves sperm health and may increase the likelihood of conception. NAD found Bayer's evidence, which consisted largely of ingredient-level studies, including observational research and studies in infertile populations, did not substantiate those outcomes, particularly for healthy men at the product's dosage.
Key Takeaway
- Pay attention to context, not just form. Structure-function claims have long been understood to be subject to a lower substantiation bar than health outcome claims. This decision serves as a reminder that viewing the claim in context is key to NAD's analysis as to whether a "supports" claim requires more robust clinical evidence. Here, pairing "support" language with pre-condition positioning and timing cues (e.g., "pre-conception," and "3 months before") signaled to NAD an outcome beyond maintaining healthy structure and functioning of the body. If the advertised outcome and instruction were less concrete, such that the context did not signal a specific endpoint, one can see how a lower level of support may have sufficed.