Beiersdorf’s Long Court Battle Over Nivea ‘Drug’ Claims May Be Ending; In Similar Case, L’Oreal May Settle
The Beiersdorf and L’Oreal cases, both pending in California federal courts, have important implications for the cosmetics industry and its use of benefit claims that test statutory boundaries between unapproved drug products and cosmetics.
You may also be interested in...
Expand Federal Pre-emption In Supplement Claims Complaints? Not So Fast, Says Ninth Circuit
The ruling reverses district court’s dismissal of class action against CVS after determining the lower court erred in determining federal law pre-empted the consumer plaintiff’s state-law causes of action. It says while consumers are prohibited under California law from arguing that a product doesn’t provide a benefit that isn’t claimed, plaintiffs can demand substantiation for claims that are made.
Plaintiff Claims Against Beiersdorf For ‘Unlawfully Marketed Drug’ Are Preempted By FDCA, Court Rules
After five and a half years, three dismissal motions and one appeal, Beiersdorf’s prevailed on 15 April by summary judgment in a proposed class action alleging that its Nivea Skin Firming Hydration Body Lotion is an unlawfully marketed drug. Of course, the plaintiff still could appeal.
Anti-Aging Cosmetics Or Unlawfully Marketed Drugs? Two Federal Court Cases To Watch
The Ninth Circuit will hear arguments from L’Oreal and a plaintiff who alleges the firm’s RevitaLift products are unlawfully marketed drugs, following the case’s dismissal in July on federal preemption grounds. In a neighboring California district, Beiersdorf intends to seek summary judgment in five-year-old litigation of a similar design, concerning Nivea Skin Firming Hydration Body Lotion.