Coppertone’s Dismissal Motion Shut Down In False-Advertising Action Over ‘Mineral-Based’ Claims
Plaintiffs allege that Coppertone sunscreens are deceptively labeled as “mineral-based” when they contain a larger percentage of chemical active ingredients than mineral active ingredients. On 31 July, California’s Northern District roundly rejected defendants’ motion to dismiss.
You may also be interested in...
Tom's natural claims on toothpastes and deodorants are false and misleading, a plaintiff alleges in a proposed class action filed in Massachusetts federal court. Similar to previous complaints against Colgate/Tom’s, the plaintiff’s case is premised on the contention that “natural,” as opposed to “100% natural,” means no synthetic ingredients.
The iconic sunscreen brand aims to capitalize on growing demand for mineral sunscreens – widely perceived as consumers’ safest option in sun defense – by positioning offerings that contain mixes of mineral and chemical UV filters as “mineral-based,” according to a suit filed in December in California federal court.
The Germany-based skin-care specialist will pay Bayer $550m for the iconic brand and gain entry to the US sunscreen market. The US represents the world’s biggest opportunity for sun care, but it’s also rife with uncertainty following FDA’s recent call for data to support key active ingredients’ continued GRASE status.