Johnson & Johnson baby sunscreen class action dismissed

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.

Update:

• A judge has dismissed an attempted class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson over its Aveeno Baby products because the plaintiffs failed to show an actual injury from the company’s labeling of the products as “baby.”
• U.S. District Judge Jesus Bernal ruled seven of the charges in plaintiff Bonny Schippel’s complaint could be amended and refiled except for the eighth cause of actual, negligent misrepresentation, which isn’t allowed to be used based upon economic loss.
• If Schippel amends the complaint to act factual specificity to her injury in support of her theory of paying a premium for the term “baby” on the product, then Johnson & Johnson would not be able to file a second motion to dismiss regarding any issue other than price premium allegations, according to court documents.

Aveeno baby class action overview: 

• Who: An Aveeno customer is suing Johnson & Johnson.
• Why: The plaintiff says the company falsely advertises some of its products as being specifically for babies, when they are the same as the adult versions, except sold at a premium.
• Where: The Aveeno baby class action was filed in a California federal court.

(March 15, 2023)

Aveeno falsely advertises some of its products as being specifically made for babies, when the products are identical to the adult versions, only more expensive, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiff Bonny Schippell filed the class action complaint against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. on March 9 in a California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. 

According to the lawsuit, Johnson & Johnson falsely represented its Aveeno Baby Continuous Protection Sensitive Skin Lotion Zinc Oxide Sunscreen and Aveeno Baby Eczema Therapy Moisturizing Cream as being made specifically for babies when they are not.

The products are prominently labeled with the word “baby,” the lawsuit states.

“Unbeknownst to consumers, the Baby Products’ ingredients are identical to the adult versions of the same products,” the lawsuit states.

“The Defendant misleads reasonable consumers by making use of the venerable ‘Baby’ label maliciously, thereby taking advantage of the consumer’s edification, caution, and fear, often stemming from their parental or caretaker role,” it says.

Consumers are charged more for the ‘baby’ product, lawsuit alleges

Aveeno customers are charged more money for the baby products than for the adult products, the lawsuit alleges.

“Yet, there is no reason for this price premium, as the Baby and Adult Products are identical,” Schippell says.

Schippell seeks to represent anyone in the United States who bought one of the products, plus a California subclass. 

She is suing for breach of California consumer laws, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation and seeks certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. 

In 2022, Johnson & Johnson agreed to provide $1.75 million in vouchers as part of a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims Neutrogena and Aveeno sunscreen products were contaminated with carcinogens. 

What do you think of the allegations against Johnson & Johnson in this case? Let us know in the comments. 

The plaintiff is represented by Lisa T. Omoto of Faruqi & Faruqi LLP.

The Johnson & Johnson class action lawsuit is Bonny Schippell, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., Case No. 5:23-cv-00410 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Neutrogena, Aveeno sunscreen carcinogens $1.75M class action lawsuit settlement
• Colorado medical debt collection lawsuit investigation
• Athletes sue 8 Ivy League universities in class action over illegal price-fixing scheme
• Wilsons Leather class action alleges company uses false reference pricing to entice sales