Schering-Plough, Playtex Named Defendants In Class Action-Filed Suit
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
Executive Summary
A class action-filed lawsuit against Schering-Plough and four other sunscreen manufacturers in California claims the companies misled consumers regarding their products' ability to protect skin from the sun's rays
|
A class action-filed lawsuit against Schering-Plough and four other sunscreen manufacturers in California claims the companies misled consumers regarding their products' ability to protect skin from the sun's rays. Filed March 30 in Los Angeles County Superior Court by law firms Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins and Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, the complaint consolidates a number of individual consumer suits against the manufacturers that were filed over a two-year period. The firms said they currently are seeking class certification. The suit names as defendants Coppertone marketer Schering-Plough, Banana Boat marketer Playtex, Neutrogena owner Johnson & Johnson, Bullfrog marketer Chattem, and Hawaiian Tropic maker Tanning Research Labs. According to an amended master complaint, the companies "misrepresented material information in the marketing, labeling, advertising and sale of consumer sun protection products." For example, the plaintiffs assert defendants' labeling state products protect skin from UVA and UVB rays; however, "defendants knew or should have known their skin protection products, at best, only protect the skin against harmful UVA rays with shorter wavelengths, while the skin remains exposed to harmful UVA rays with longer wavelengths that penetrate deeper into the skin's layers," the suit alleges. Defendants also have "deceptively" advertised that their products provide waterproof and/or sweatproof protection, knowing sun protection in formulas diminished over a short period of time after exposure to or immersion in water or sweat, the complaint notes. "The health costs to members of the classes...and the general public as a result of this deceptive conduct have been staggering," the plaintiffs claim, noting the public believes it can spend more time in the sun "without risk" by using the sunscreen products. Plaintiffs seek "injunctive relief, actual damages, restitution, disgorgement, punitive damages, costs and expenses of litigation." Schering-Plough and Playtex maintain the suit is without merit and that their products comply with FDC rules and regulations. FDA is working to publish UVA guidelines under the partially-stayed OTC sunscreen final monograph this year, as recently urged by Congress (1 (Also see "Senate Approps Bill Presses FDA To Implement OTC Sunscreen Rule" - HBW Insight, 26 Sep, 2005.), p. 9). - Eileen Francis |