Neutrogena Pre-emption Defense Stands On California State Court Appeal
This article was originally published in The Tan Sheet
The FDA Modernization Act promotes regulatory uniformity and pre-empts litigation seeking changes to J&J/Neutrogena sunscreen labeling claims beyond FDA requirements, a California state appellate court says. OTC drug and cosmetic firms have been less successful with pre-emption arguments in other cases.
You may also be interested in...
Preemption Argument In Drug/Cosmetic Dispute Likely Falls Short Of Supreme Court
Federal law does not preempt Allergan's suit alleging Athena Cosmetics' RevitaLash competes unfairly against the drug firm's Latisse treatment in California, according to a Supreme Court brief filed by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli. Athena argues the absence of FDA action against its eyelash enhancers signals that its cosmetic positioning is lawful.
Another Motrin Failure-To-Warn Decision Rejects Pre-emption Defense
Massachusetts’ supreme court says no “clear evidence” showed “FDA would not have approved a warning on OTC ibuprofen labels stating that redness, rash, and blisters may lead to a life-threatening disease.” McNeil’s failed appeal of a verdict in Children’s Motrin litigation adds to rulings that reject federal pre-emption against failure-to-warn complaints.
FDA Strengthens Sunscreen Testing And Label Requirements
As early as June 2012, sunscreens that fail “broad spectrum” tests or have an SPF less than 15 must warn that they have not been shown to prevent cancer or early skin aging, according to an FDA final rule.