Regulatory Roulette: Playing In Today’s Skin-Care Market A Gamble
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
Recent FDA warning letters to skin-care firms raise questions about the regulatory risks companies must assume to compete effectively in today’s marketplace. Former FDAer and EAS Senior Adviser John Bailey discusses the strategic decision before personal-care companies as they develop their marketing and the potential consequences of using structure/function claims.
You may also be interested in...
Ads claiming P&G's Olay Regenerist skin-care line “re-energizes skin’s appearance cell by cell” mislead consumers into expecting deeper cellular changes rather than mere surface exfoliation, an implied benefit unsupported by the firm's evidence, according to the UK’s independent regulator.
FDA cites Reviva for unapproved drug claims on eight of its products marketed as cosmetics. Included among targeted claims are familiar statements about collagen production, inflammation reduction and other benefits the agency views as structure/function effects. A number of the claims onceivably could be allowed under the revised "cosmetic" definition proposed by the Cosmetic Modernization Amendments of 2015.
Lower court decisions that Athena Cosmetics’ RevitaLash products is an unapproved drug competing unfairly against Allergan's Latisse drug could have broader implications if the Supreme Court denies the firm's request for review. Already beleaguered by class actions following FDA warnings, firms could face more opportunistic lawsuits if federal courts are left to determine a product's intended use and regulatory status.