phrases like “ 100% non-nano-minerals ,” “ mineral SPF protection ,” and “ mineral broad-spectrum sunscreen ,” which plaintiffs say lead consumers to believe every ingredient is mineral-based or from a natural source.​ The lawsuit alleges that, despite this positioning, the formulas actually contain “a plethora” of synthetic, processed, and chemically altered ingredients that are not mineral at all.​ Plaintiffs argue that reasonable shoppers would interpret the “mineral” messaging to mean the overall composition is fully mineral and natural, not just the active UV filters.​ Products named in the complaint The filing targets a group of Supergoop products sold as mineral or “ 100% mineral ” sunscreens.​ Named examples include Supergoop (Re)setting 100% Mineral SPF 25 , Bright-Eyed 100% Mineral Eye Cream SPF 40 , Zinc Screen 100% Mineral Lotion , and Mineral Unseen Sunscreen , along with other mineral-labeled SKUs sold during the four years before the complaint was filed.​ The proposed class covers California residents who purchased one or more of these mineral-labeled products in the four-year period leading up to the filing date.​ The suit seeks damages, restitution, and…