HBW Insight is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

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

Beiersdorf Moves To Squash Suit Alleging NIVEA Firming Lotion Is An Unapproved Drug

This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet

Executive Summary

Plaintiff claims that she and other Californians purchased a NIVEA skin-firming lotion “that, but for Defendant’s illegal conduct, would not have been on the market” due to its alleged unapproved drug status. This is her second amended complaint against Beiersdorf, the first having been dismissed in August 2015.

You may also be interested in...



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.

California Federal Court: Products That Firm Skin Via Moisturization Could Be Unapproved Drugs

Plaintiff Ashley Franz’s claim that Beiersdorf’s Nivea Skin Firming Hydration Body Lotion is an unlawfully marketed drug clears the “relatively low bar of plausibility,” a California federal court determined May 21, denying the firm’s latest bid for dismissal. However, the court intriguingly suggests a motion for summary judgment could be “appropriate” before addressing class certification.

Rodan + Fields Concealed Prostaglandin Risks From Lash Boost Users – Class Action

Marketers of cosmetic lash enhancers that haven’t abandoned prostaglandin analogs in favor of peptides or botanical extracts should take heed of a proposed class action against Rodan + Fields in California’s Northern District. Plaintiffs say they would not have purchased the firm’s Lash Boost and suffered alleged adverse effects if they’d been properly informed about product risks.

Related Content

Topics

Related Companies

Latest Headlines
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

RS108664

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