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


St. Ives Apricot Scrubbed Of Class Action Alleging Harm From Walnut Shells

Executive Summary

Federal judge says plaintiffs “have at best shown that St. Ives Scrub could, in theory, alter the skin’s surface.” Drug and device law attorney says the complaint "is not really a labeling issue” and the court applied “a healthy dose of common sense” in ruling.

You may also be interested in...

FDA-Proposed Talc Testing Methods Likely Would Find Particles Of Concern; Then What?

The FDA is focused on driving adoption of more sensitive, standardized testing methods for assessing cosmetic talc purity, which it believes would yield more consistent results across labs. This would help to inform research into the health implications of trace levels of asbestos and other elongate mineral particles in talc; in the interim it could to be damaging to companies that supply or use that talc.

Unilever Seeks End To Litigation Over St. Ives Scrub, Plaintiffs’ ‘Fake Medical Condition’

In April 2017, Unilever failed to dismiss a putative class action in California’s Central District alleging that its St. Ives Apricot Scrub is unfit for sale due to the potential of its crushed walnut shells to cause “microtears” in skin. Now the firm seeks summary judgment in the matter, maintaining that plaintiffs are relying on “junk science” to assert the possibility of a made-up medical condition.

Unilever Files Snarky Motion To Shred St. Ives Class Action

St. Ives owner lays into a putative class action denouncing the brand’s Apricot Scrub as “completely worthless” and suggesting that it damages users’ skin, contrary to claims. According to Unilever’s motion for dismissal, the plaintiffs have styled a product liability complaint as a false advertising suit in order to recover damages for a nationwide class of purchasers, but lack standing and plausibility in their claims.

Related Content





Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

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