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

Plaintiff Claims Against Beiersdorf For ‘Unlawfully Marketed Drug’ Are Preempted By FDCA, Court Rules

Executive Summary

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.

You may also be interested in...



CBD Class-Action Litigants Watching For Retroactive Effects In US FDA’s Awaited Rulemaking

Even in the “highly unlikely event” that the FDA does make CBD supplements legal, it will not do so retroactively, according to plaintiffs against CV Sciences in California’s Central District. However, the federal court, which also is hearing a similar case against competitor Charlotte’s Web, is not convinced.

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.

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.

Related Content

Topics

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

LL1135307

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

Cancel