Environmental Group Sues Nature’s Fusions, Names Target Corporation As Defendant

Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. filed a Proposition 65 consumer-protection complaint naming Nature’s Fusions, LLC and Target Corporation as defendants, alleging Nature’s Fusions Nutri Sea Moss Complex dietary supplements expose consumers to lead and that defendants failed to warn consumers about that exposure. The complaint was filed in San Francisco County Superior Court as case number CGC-26-634183.

The complaint, filed February 24, 2026, lists Environmental Health Advocates as plaintiff and identifies Noam Glick of Entorno Law as plaintiff counsel. Multiple summaries of the filing describe the action as a civil - other non exempt complaints matter brought under California’s Proposition 65 private-enforcement regime and seeking both civil penalties and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff seeks civil penalties described in the complaint as exceeding $1 million plus injunctive relief to require clear warnings about lead content on the Nature’s Fusions Nutri Sea Moss Complex products. The law summary and case listing state the complaint alleges violations continued even after notice of the alleged infractions was provided, but the complaint text and supporting exhibits such as lab results or exact notice dates are not included in the materials provided.

Report summaries and the court index are consistent that Target Corporation is named as a defendant; several filings and headlines also list Nature’s Fusions, LLC in the case caption. One case-listing entry shows the defendants line as “Target Corporation, A Minnesota Corporation, Inclusive Does 1 Through 100 + 1,” omitting Nature’s Fusions in that single-line index field while the caption and other summaries include Nature’s Fusions. The available materials do not include any answer, demurrer, or other response from Target or Nature’s Fusions.

Environmental Health Advocates describes its own work online as: “[w]e source, identify, and test products that potentially violate Proposition 65.” The organization has a recent pattern of Proposition 65 filings: Perkins Coie excerpts and court lists show EHA filed multiple nearly identical suits since May 18, 2022 alleging failure-to-warn claims over titanium dioxide in personal care and cosmetics products, including cases such as Environmental Health Advocates Inc. v. Mineral Fusion Natural Brands LLC, CGC-22-601187 (filed Aug. 9, 2022) and Environmental Health Advocates Inc. v. Physicians Formula Cosmetics Inc., CGC-22-600957 (filed July 27, 2022).

Background drawn from earlier EHA litigation highlights procedural issues that have arisen in other suits. In a separate matter against Pancho Villas Inc., a San Diego Superior Court judge observed on June 3, 2024 that “[t]he intent behind the pre-suit notice is to enable businesses targeted by [Proposition 65] actions to economically and efficiently address concerns raised in the pre-suit notice by directly communicating with the private citizen enforcer.” That ruling discussed notice content and attachments and concluded, in the reporting excerpt, that “The failure to provide contact information of a responsible individual within the noticing entityand attachment of an older summary of Proposition 65 do not defeat these overall objectives of the 60-day notice.”

At this writing the Nature’s Fusions / Target complaint stands at the initial filing stage in San Francisco Superior Court under CGC-26-634183; the materials provided do not include defendant statements, detailed testing data, or further docket activity. The complaint seeks civil penalties exceeding $1 million and injunctive relief requiring corrective warnings on the Nutri Sea Moss Complex products.