Purell Class Action Says Hand Sanitizer Can’t Prevent Serious Diseases

A class action lawsuit claims that Purell is falsely advertised as being protective against diseases such as the flu, MRSA and Ebola.

The Purell false advertising class action lawsuit was filed by Cliff Jurkiewicz who says he travels frequently, and purchases Purell hand sanitizers to help protect him from germs he may encounter.

However, he alleges that he was falsely led to believe that the products were able to fight certain diseases.

Jurkiewicz claims that he and many other customers were financially injured by the misrepresentations, because had they known that the product could not fight germs as advertised, they would not have purchased it.

Jurkiewicz explains that he has purchased the products regularly since 2006. He says that to make his purchasing decisions, he researched Purell’s products and read advertisements. Allegedly, he decided to buy Purell because it was advertised as being able to kill germs. 

Specifically, he says he purchased Purell products that bore the slogan “Kills more than 99.99% of all Germs.”

According to the Purell class action lawsuit, germs are made up of bacteria, viruses, fungi, and protozoa. Allegedly, Purell’s statement implies that the product kills 99.9 percent of bacteria and viruses.

The Purell class action lawsuit then goes on to say that because Purell claims its products kill 99.99 percent of bacteria and viruses, the products reduce illness and disease.

However, Jurkiewicz’s Purell class action lawsuit argues that this is not the case. Allegedly, there is no evidence that Purell prevents diseases or reduces illness.

Jurkiewicz notes that the FDA stated that there is no evidence suggesting that “killing or decreasing the number of bacteria or viruses on the skin by a certain magnitude produces a corresponding clinical reduction in infection or disease caused by such bacteria or virus.”

The Purell class action lawsuit asserts that Purell’s advertising campaign has relied on scaring people about the flu and other diseases, and then providing consumers with what appears to be a solution to flu exposure.

Allegedly, Purell advertises its hand sanitizers as an alternative when soap and water are not available, or recommends that hand sanitizer be used in addition to soap and water.

Reportedly, Purell allows users to form an association between the words “flu” and “Purell” and “consumers reach the inference that Purell must prevent and reduce the flu and other viruses based on the wording and images used.”

Jurkiewicz explains that in January 2020, the FDA sent a warning letter requesting that Purell stop advertising its hand sanitizers as effective in preventing diseases, because the messaging is misleading to consumers.

According to the FDA, hand sanitizer is just a topical antiseptic, and does not have the advertised disease reduction capacities. The FDA then said that the claims made by Purell amount to claims made about a new drug, for which the FDA had not given approval.

Customers have previously taken issue with the same advertising, and have filed another class action lawsuit over the advertising.

Do you use Purell? Let us know in the comments section below.

Jurkiewicz is represented by W.B. Markovits and Terence R. Coates of Markovits Stock & DeMarco LLC; David J. George and Lori G. Feldman of George Gesten McDonald PLLC; and Mark Morrison of Morrison & Associates.

The Purell Disease Prevention False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Cliff Jurkiewicz v. Gojo Industries Inc., et al., Case No. 5:20-cv-00279-BYP, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

What Type of Lung Cancer is Caused by Asbestos?

Johnson and Johnson Baby Powder Lawsuit Ends With $186 Million in Punitive Damages

Bacardi Wants Bombay Sapphire Gin Class Action Dismissed

GNC Class Action Says Vitamin E Oil is Mostly Vegetable Oil