Why Preemption Defense Worked In Recent Neutrogena Suits, But Not Others
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
Executive Summary
Consumer suits seeking changes to, or disclosures in, J&J/Neutrogena sunscreen labeling claims – beyond what FDA requires – are preempted in accordance with the FDA Modernization Act, which Congress intended to promote national regulatory uniformity, a California appellate court has ruled. OTC drug and cosmetic firms, including J&J, have been less successful with preemption arguments in other cases.
You may also be interested in...
Sun Protection Fraud? Class Actions Dispute Brands' Claimed SPFs
Banana Boat owner Edgewell Personal Care is among firms caught up in putative class actions challenging the authenticity of their SPF claims on sunscreen products, with plaintiffs citing Consumer Reports findings as well as their own commissioned tests from independent labs. Attempts to dismiss suits on the basis of preemption arguments or company-owned SPF data have not been successful to date.
Beiersdorf Moves To Squash Suit Alleging NIVEA Firming Lotion Is An Unapproved Drug
Plaintiff claims that she and other Californians purchased a NIVEA skin-firming lotion “that, but for Defendant’s illegal conduct, would not have been on the market” due to its alleged unapproved drug status. This is her second amended complaint against Beiersdorf, the first having been dismissed in August 2015.
Nervous About ‘Natural’? Honest Company Heads For Organic Pastures
Honest says its shift to organic products is more about opportunity than avoiding “natural” claims, but the term is better defined and more actively regulated, which tends to insulate brands against the types of false-advertising lawsuits that have inundated natural product marketers.