HBW Insight is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

Supreme Court Turns Down Athena v. Allergan; 'Torrent' Of Suits To Come?

This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet

Executive Summary

Following the recommendation of Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, the Supreme Court has declined to review Allergan v. Athena Cosmetics, a case examining if the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act preempts an unfair competition claim in California characterizing Athena's RevitaLash products as unapproved drugs. Athena predicts a "torrent of novel and disruptive litigation" could ensue.

You may also be interested in...



RevitaLash Moves North Of Brow With New Hair-Care Line; More Cosmetic Launches

Athena Cosmetics’ new RevitaLash hair-care line includes Hair Volume Enhancing Foam, made with the same BioPeptin Complex that replaced a prostaglandin in the company’s original RevitaLash Advanced Eyelash Conditioner. More cosmetic launch news in brief.

Rodan + Fields Concealed Prostaglandin Risks From Lash Boost Users – Class Action

Marketers of cosmetic lash enhancers that haven’t abandoned prostaglandin analogs in favor of peptides or botanical extracts should take heed of a proposed class action against Rodan + Fields in California’s Northern District. Plaintiffs say they would not have purchased the firm’s Lash Boost and suffered alleged adverse effects if they’d been properly informed about product risks.

Supreme Court Cosmetic, Food Decisions Shape Amarin's Appeal For Omega-3 Trade Inquiry

Amarin's petition to the Federal Circuit Court to direct ITC to investigate its complaint that some omega-3 ingredients are unapproved drugs leans on Supreme Court decisions that compliance with FDA regulations in cosmetic and food labeling does not preclude litigation alleging the information rendered a product an unapproved drug or represented false advertising.

Related Content

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

RS019557

Ask The Analyst

Please Note: You can also Click below Link for Ask the Analyst
Ask The Analyst

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel