Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
A New York man says he was tricked into believing ChapStick lip balm-sunscreen products would provide day-long SPF protection, when they actually need to be reapplied every two hours.
Lead plaintiff Clinton Engram alleges in his class action lawsuit that Wyeth Consumer Healthcare LLC, the maker of ChapStick brand products, deliberately misleads consumers into believing their lip balm provides longer-lasting sun protection than its competitors.
However, a closer reading of the back of the ChapStick packaging reveals that consumers must reapply the product every few hours to continue to be protected by the sun.
According to the ChapStick class action, the labeling on ChapStick sun protection lip balm products emphasizes “8 hour moisture” right next to “SPF 15.” The plaintiff says that this labeling misleads consumers into thinking the product provides eight total hours of sun protection.
“The representations of ‘8 hour moisture,’ when combined with ‘SPF 15,’ represent the Products are able to provide ‘all-day’ or extended wear protection against sun damage, instead of no more than the actual two hours indicated as time between applications,” alleges the ChapStick class action lawsuit.
The plaintiff contends that he and other reasonable consumers take the labeling to mean that they would only need to reapply the product every “8 hours” to maintain sun protection.
“There is no other plausible reason why a specific, finite duration for the moisture producing abilities of the Products is used in this way, especially because consumers value and will pay more for sun protection products which provide longer protection from the sun,” alleges the ChapStick class action lawsuit.
“This misrepresentation also increases the risk of consumer harm, because it encourages less-frequent and under-application of the Products since the only application-related front-label claim is related to how much moisture it provides.”
In addition to misleading consumers, these claims also put consumers at additional risk, claims the plaintiff pointing out that the lips are especially vulnerable to sun damage because of their exposure to light and lack of natural protection.
Further, people generally apply less sunscreen containing products to their lips and often at a less frequent rate, states the ChapStick class action.
“Appropriate use of lip-protection-sunscreen products reduces acute and chronic hazards of UV radiation risk of skin damage, including cancer and have few risks of misuse,” says the ChapStick class action lawsuit, pointing out that lip protection sunscreens face fewer labeling requirements than regular sunscreen.
The plaintiff claims ChapStick is the only product that makes misleading claims about the duration of sun protection it provides. In addition, Wyeth charges a premium for ChapStick with SPF 15 – nearly $4 per tube.
The ChapStick class action lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide Class of consumers who purchased ChapStick brand products marketed with sun protection claims, along with a New York and California subclass.
The plaintiff is seeking damages, as well as a court order stopping Wyeth from misleadingly marketing ChapStick brand sun protection lip balms.
The plaintiff is represented by Spencer Sheehan of Sheehan & Associates PC.
The ChapStick Sunscreen Moisturizer Lip Balm Class Action Lawsuit is Engram, et al. v. Wyeth Consumer Healthcare LLC, Case No. 1:19-cv-02886, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
861 thoughts onChapStick Class Action Says SPF Label is Misleading
Please add me, thanks!
add me
Add me please
I’ve used Chapstick for years!
Please add me.
I purchased several for myself and my family
Need to be included in this
Please add me. We have used for years.
Add me, I have been using chapstick for over 25 years along with my 24, 22, 18 and 12 children.
Add me I just bought it today I have used chapstick all my life.
Add me been using Chapstick for decades.