Top Class Actions  |  September 12, 2014

Category: Consumer News

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.

ByNeutrogena Naturals Class Action Lawsuit Settlement carving out a period prior to a Food and Drug Administration ruling, a Florida woman can proceed with her Neutrogena sunscreen false advertising class action lawsuit, a federal judge wrote in denying the cosmetic company and Johnson & Johnson’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. wrote that while all sunscreens require a sun protection factor, or SPF rating, lead plaintiff Vanessa Lombardo had not alleged a problem with that, which was regulated by the FDA. Rather, she argued that Aveeno and Neutrogena sunscreens sold prior to June 17, 2011 included phrases such as “waterproof” and “sweatproof protection” as well as being named “sunblock.”

She also claims that the labeling on the products allegedly “provided additional clinical benefit… and charged premium prices accordingly.”

The judge seemed to find that reasonable considering “there is significant clinical benefit for consumers switching from a SPF 10 sunscreen to a SPF 40 sunscreen, while there is allegedly little to no additional clinical benefit from switching from a SPF 55 sunscreen to a SPF 85 sunscreen.”

While the FDA ruling in 2011 that took effect Dec. 17, 2012 would preemmpt her claims of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act after that date, the fact that it existed in the first place would seem to support her claims that consumers would be misled by the “waterproof” and related claims that could be seen as false advertising.

By the very nature of the SPF testing, Lombardo argues that sunscreen “does not ‘block’ all ultraviolet radiation” so the word is misleading. Further, the fact that the numbers are regulated by FDA protocols, it does not mean that the phrasing about clinical effectiveness cannot be subject to false advertising claims, the judge wrote.

He did toss one section of the complaint of the Neutrogena class action lawsuit, however.

Judge Scola wrote that injunctive relief is designed to prevent imminent injury to one of the affected parties. However, Lombardo has not alleged that she would buy the products if the Netruogena sunscreens’ labeling was changed regarding the clinical effectiveness. Therefore, the order denying the companies’ motion to dismiss the other counts did toss the injunctive relief request.

Lombardo is represented by J. Andrew Meyer, Christopher Stephen Polaszek, Rachel Lynn Soffin and John Allen Yanchunis, Sr. of Morgan & Morgan PA.

The Neutrogena Sunscreen False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Vanessa Lombardo v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Cos. Inc., et al., Case No. 13-cv-60536 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.


4 thoughts onNeutrogena Sunscreen False Advertising Class Action Moves Forward

  1. Desirae Martinez says:

    I used this product and got second degree burns on my back, arms, chest, and my face. Now I have to miss work because it said water and sweat proof. I can not put clothes on ie braw/shirts. On the burns they have bubbled up all over. I’m in pain. My 12 year old son got burned all over his face and back. His face bubbled up and is now healing.

  2. stephanie montenegro says:

    I love Nutregena products, but when I did buy the sunscreen it burned my eyes BIG time!! I never realized it was because of them, I thought it was me. This really makes me upset thinking I bought more thinking it was me!

  3. krista michael says:

    I purchased this product multiple times. I trusted the brand. My family is VERY fair skinned and we still got burned, even after reapplying. If it got in our eyes it stung. As stated by Linda Felges “it was not blocking the sun like it stated on the tube”. I’d like to be included in this action. Thank you.

  4. Linda Feiges says:

    We only bought the Nutregena sunblock because we assumed it was sweat and water proof. I should have know better, because my eyes and my husband’s eyes would burn a little while after applying the sunblock. It was because it was NOT sweat or water proof. Furthermore, we could still get some sunburns. It was not blocking the sun like it stated on the tube. Let me know where and when we can apply to be included in the class action. Thank You.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. By submitting your comment and contact information, you agree to receive marketing emails from Top Class Actions regarding this and/or similar lawsuits or settlements, and/or to be contacted by an attorney or law firm to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you if you qualify. Required fields are marked *

Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source that reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on the status of any class action settlement claim. You must contact the settlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regarding your claim status, claim form or questions about when payments are expected to be mailed out.