SPF Fraud Cases Hard To Shake, Could Shine Light On FDA Protocol Problems
This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet
Executive Summary
As SPF defendants’ dismissal motions continue to be shot down in federal courts, it increasingly seems that their SPF claims and the radically different test results alleged by plaintiffs will have to be subjected to rigorous analysis and expert opinion, undertakings that could shine light on inherent problems with FDA’s testing protocol rather than overt moves by companies to inflate the protective capacity of their products.
You may also be interested in...
Sunscreen SPFs Back In Plaintiffs’ Crosshairs? Alleged Supergoop Misrepresentations Don't Go Unseen
Plaintiff Marceann Dunning says she and other consumers would not have purchased Supergoop Unseen Sunscreen for body and face, or would have paid less for them, had they known the products’ SPF was significantly lower than the SPF 40 labeled. A rash of similar class actions years back against major sunscreen brands fizzled, ostensibly in quiet settlements with lead plaintiffs.
Owner Of Sunscreen Testing Lab AMA Awaits Sentencing Following Guilty Plea In US Federal Case
Gabriel Letizia Jr. potentially faces up to seven years in prison after admitting to defrauding AMA Laboratories customers of more than $46m by sending them bogus testing reports. The US FDA, which participated in the investigation, has not commented publicly on the implications for improperly tested sunscreens and other products.
What’s In A Name? Babyganics Settles False Advertising Allegations To Tune Of $2.2M
The SC Johnson brand can continue to use the name Babyganics as long as it specifies on product labeling which ingredients are organic, and which aren’t, per a pending class action settlement in New York’s Southern District. The company also has agreed to sunscreen batch testing for a three-year period to verify the authenticity of SPF claims.