Coppertone’s Dismissal Motion Shut Down In False-Advertising Action Over ‘Mineral-Based’ Claims
Executive Summary
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...
California Federal Court Rejects Settlement Proposal In Coppertone ‘Mineral-Based’ Sunscreen Case
Beiersdorf and former owner Bayer are on the verge of settling a proposed class action in California’s Northern District challenging “mineral-based” claims on Coppertone sunscreens that also contain chemical UV filters. However, the parties will have to try again with their proposed terms.
Colgate’s Tom’s Of Maine Back In Federal Court Over ‘Natural’ Claims
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.
Coppertone ‘Mineral-Based’ Sunscreens Are Falsely Advertised – Proposed Class Action
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.