California Court Upholds Fed Preemption In J&J Sunscreen Labeling Cases
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
Executive Summary
A California appeals court affirms that sunscreen labeling falls within the purview of FDA, rejecting plaintiff allegations that J&J/Neutrogena sunscreen labeling – fully compliant with federal regulations – is potentially misleading nonetheless in violation of California law.
You may also be interested in...
Sun Protection Fraud? Class Actions Dispute Brands' Claimed SPFs
Banana Boat owner Edgewell Personal Care is among firms caught up in putative class actions challenging the authenticity of their SPF claims on sunscreen products, with plaintiffs citing Consumer Reports findings as well as their own commissioned tests from independent labs. Attempts to dismiss suits on the basis of preemption arguments or company-owned SPF data have not been successful to date.
Why Preemption Defense Worked In Recent Neutrogena Suits, But Not Others
Consumer suits seeking changes to, or disclosures in, J&J/Neutrogena sunscreen labeling claims – beyond what FDA requires – are preempted in accordance with the FDA Modernization Act, which Congress intended to promote national regulatory uniformity, a California appellate court has ruled. OTC drug and cosmetic firms, including J&J, have been less successful with preemption arguments in other cases.
Why Preemption Defense Worked In Recent Neutrogena Suits, But Not Others
Consumer suits seeking changes to, or disclosures in, J&J/Neutrogena sunscreen labeling claims – beyond what FDA requires – are preempted in accordance with the FDA Modernization Act, which Congress intended to promote national regulatory uniformity, a California appellate court has ruled. OTC drug and cosmetic firms, including J&J, have been less successful with preemption arguments in other cases.