CVS Class Action Alleges No Aloe in ‘Aloe Vera’ Gel

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 class action lawsuit alleges that drug store chain CVS Health Corporation violated consumer protection laws by advertising its “Aftersun Aloe Vera Moisturizing Gel” as containing aloe vera.

The complaint asserts that “in reality, according to independent lab tests, Defendant’s Product contains no actual aloe at all.”

The CVS aloe vera gel class action lawsuit notes that demand for aloe vera gel, especially 100% pure aloe vera, has increased since studies have shown that aloe “may help lower cholesterol and reduce glucose levels.”

Sales of aloe vera products globally are estimated at $13 billion per year, according to the complaint. The class action contends that CVS has tried to fraudulently cash in on that business, by mislabeling its own brand of aloe vera gel.

The class action complaint contains pictures of CVS’s brand aloe vera gel. Previous versions of the gel prominently stated that it was “100% pure aloe vera.” While currently CVS’s “Aftersun” gel no longer has “100% pure” on its label, the class action argues that it is deceptive and misleading, because the tested gel had no “acemannan (a key aloe component).”

The complaint cites numerous sources, including the International Aloe Science Counsel, for the proposition that products “that do not contain Acemannan are not considered to be true aloe vera.” The class action states that “improper” manufacturing processes can result in the removal of acemannan from aloe vera.

According to the lawsuit, the CVS Aftersun “aloe vera” gel label is misleading, because it lists “aloe vera gel” as the first “active ingredient” in the product. The class action argues that it is deceptive both because “aloe vera gel” is not an “Active ingredient” itself—the acemannan is—and because the product has no actual acemannan in it.

In addition to the lack of the key active ingredient, the complaint also asserts that the CVS Aftersun gel is misleading, because it contains propylene glycol which is not listed as an ingredient on the product label.

Plaintiff Patricia Bordenet states that she purchased CVS Aftersun aloe vera gel several times. Bordenet contends that without the key ingredient of acemannan, there is no reason she, or any other person, would have purchased CVS’s aloe vera gel.

The deceptive advertising lawsuit requests certification of several Classes, including a nationwide Class of all persons who purchased CVS Aftersun aloe vera gel.

The complaint also lists a subclass under state consumer protection laws for residents of California, Florida, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Washington who purchased the CVS gel.

The class action seeks restitution for Class Members, as well as additional statutory damages under state laws.

Bordenet is represented by Brain J. Wanca and Jeffrey A. Berman of Anderson + Wanca; Jason Thompson and Lance Young of Sommers Schwartz, P.C.; Nick Suciu III of Barbat, Mansour & Suciu PLLC; Jonathan N. Shub of Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.; Donald J. Enright and Lori G. Feldman of Levi & Korsinsky LLP; and Jason T. Brown and Patrick S. Almonrode of JTB Law Group.

The CVS Aloe Vera Gel Deceptive Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Patricia Bordenet v. CVS Health Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-06103, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.