Unilever Seeks End To Litigation Over St. Ives Scrub, Plaintiffs’ ‘Fake Medical Condition’
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
Executive Summary
In April 2017, Unilever failed to dismiss a putative class action in California’s Central District alleging that its St. Ives Apricot Scrub is unfit for sale due to the potential of its crushed walnut shells to cause “microtears” in skin. Now the firm seeks summary judgment in the matter, maintaining that plaintiffs are relying on “junk science” to assert the possibility of a made-up medical condition.
You may also be interested in...
MoCRA-Required Recordkeeping, Reporting Now ‘Fair Game’ For Litigants – Crowell & Moring
Cosmetic product manufacturers can expect the plaintiffs’ bar to leverage new record-keeping, GMP and other provisions of the Modernization of Cosmetic Regulations Act to bring or advance litigation, Crowell & Moring attorneys say. They note some defensive tactics that could prove effective.
St. Ives Apricot Scrubbed Of Class Action Alleging Harm From Walnut Shells
Federal judge says plaintiffs “have at best shown that St. Ives Scrub could, in theory, alter the skin’s surface.” Drug and device law attorney says the complaint "is not really a labeling issue” and the court applied “a healthy dose of common sense” in ruling.
Unilever Files Snarky Motion To Shred St. Ives Class Action
St. Ives owner lays into a putative class action denouncing the brand’s Apricot Scrub as “completely worthless” and suggesting that it damages users’ skin, contrary to claims. According to Unilever’s motion for dismissal, the plaintiffs have styled a product liability complaint as a false advertising suit in order to recover damages for a nationwide class of purchasers, but lack standing and plausibility in their claims.