Mineral-Based Sunblock for Kids Contains Chemicals, Class Action Alleges

The company that makes Blue Lizard sunblock deceives customers, because its mineral-based sunblocks actually contain chemicals, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

In the class action lawsuit filed Wednesday in a California federal court, Plaintiff Stacie Somers alleges Crown Laboratories violated California’s consumer fraud laws in the marketing and labeling of its Blue Lizard sunblocks.

Somers, a San Diego resident, says she bought a bottle of Blue Lizard Kids Mineral-Based Sunscreen SPF 30+ after reading the label on March 19 this year. 

She says she bought the product on Amazon.com in reliance of the company’s “mineral-based” representations and paid $19.98 for it. 

However, Somers alleges she later discovered the company markets its sunblocks as “mineral-based” even though they contain “less desirable, harmful, chemical-based active ingredients.”

Contrary to the “mineral-based” representations on the front of the sunblock labels, the class action contends, each of the products named in the claim contain chemical active ingredients of either Octisalate 5 percent or Octinoxate 5.5 percent. 

“Octinoxate is an organic compound formed from methoxycinnamic acid and 2- ethylhexanol that also filters out UVB rays and some studies have shown it gets absorbed into the bloodstream and can cause reproductive problems in animals that have been tested,” the class action says.

Somers says Crown Laboratories recognizes consumers’ growing desire for products without harmful chemicals, especially for kids, so markets its sunblocks as “mineral-based” to get a competitive advantage.

However, a reasonable consumer would not expect their mineral-based sunblock to contain chemical active ingredients, she says, “much in the same way that reasonable consumers understand that a product labeled ‘plant- based’ does not contain meat.”

“Given their rise in popularity and corresponding increase in demand, mineral sunscreen products command a price premium over chemical sunscreen products,” the claim states. 

Somers is seeking to represent a Class of California consumers who bought one of nine Blue Lizard-branded mineral-based sunscreens for kids, adults, or for sport.

The products are: Kids Mineral-Based Sunscreen SPF 30+ (5 oz Bottle); Kids Mineral-Based Sunscreen SPF 30+ (8.75 oz Bottle); Kids Mineral-Based Sunscreen SPF 50+ (5 oz Tube); Kids Mineral-Based Sunscreen SPF 50+ (8.75 oz Bottle); Face Mineral-Based Sunscreen SPF 30+ (3 oz Tube); Active Mineral-Based Sunscreen SPF 50+ (5 oz Tube); Active Mineral-Based Sunscreen SPF 50+ (8.75 oz Bottle); Sport Mineral-Based Sunscreen SPF 50+ (5 oz Bottle) and Sport Mineral-Based Sunscreen SPF 50+.

She is seeking certification of the class action, restitution, fees, costs and a jury trial. 

This complaint follows a similar class action lawsuit filed last year alleging Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals’ Coppertone sunscreens contain harmful ingredients that they pass off as mineral-based.

Would you expect mineral-based sunscreen to be chemical-free? Let us know in the comments! 

The plaintiff is represented by Patricia N. Syverson, Elaine A. Ryan and Carrie A. Laliberte of Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman & Balint, P.C. 

The Blue Lizard Mineral Sunscreen Class Action Lawsuit is Stacie Somers et al., v. Crown Laboratories, Case No. 3:21-cv-00868-BAS-DEB, in the U.S. District Court Southern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Do You Qualify: Toxic Baby Food | Autism and Other Disorders Lawsuit Claim Review
• Coppertone Lawsuit Says SPF 50 Sunscreen Doesn’t Work
• Do You Qualify: Baby Powder Cancer Class Action Lawsuit Claim Review
• Alba Botanica Mineral Sunscreen Difficult to Apply Properly, Class Action Says