Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.

Lawsuit Claims Sunscreen Products Give Consumers False Sense of Security

Report Fraud
Case ID: 4735 | Consumer Products | 04/03/2006

A class-action lawsuit recently filed alleges that five manufacturers of sunscreen have made false and misleading claims about the cancer-protective benefits of the products. The products, which include Coppertone, Banana Boat and Hawaiian Tropic, create a false sense of security that actually endangers people who use sunscreen, the suit states.

Published reports suggest that the lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeks to return money that consumers spent on these products. The suit names as defendants Schering-Plough (which makes Coppertone), Johnson & Johnson (which makes Neutrogena), Playtex Products (which makes Banana Boat), Tanning Research Labs (which makes Hawaiian Tropic), and Chattem (which makes BullFrog).

Protection From Harmful Rays

The lawsuit claims the manufacturers promote sunbathing by claiming to protect users from harmful ultraviolet rays. It says while the products might protect against ultraviolet B (UVB) rays -- the shorter-length ultraviolet rays that cause sunburn and increases the risk of skin cancer -- they do little to stop ultraviolet A (UVA) rays -- longer-length rays reaching deeper into the skin, which can also increase the risk.

However, dermatologists vehemently rebutted the suit's claims, saying that sunscreens were highly effective when used properly, but that they should always be used with other sun-smart behaviors like wearing a hat and avoiding sun exposure during peak daytime hours. "Sunscreen is believed by most, if not all, dermatologists to be an effective means of reducing exposure to harmful ultraviolet light that can start the formation of skin cancers," said Murad Alam, a Northwestern University dermatologist.

There are three types of skin cancer -- basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma. The first two occur frequently among older people who are light-skinned but have spent a lot of time outdoors. Melanoma is the most serious but also a fairly rare cancer.

Sunscreens are ranked according to their sun-protection factor. Some sunscreens block only one form of harmful sunlight, ultraviolet B, while others block UVB and UVA-type light. The lawsuit said there was no standard to measure UVA protection.

Misguided Consumers

Also at issue is the claim of some products to be waterproof. The lawsuit alleges that the "waterproof" designation was deceptive because all sunscreen products lose their effectiveness when immersed in water. And that's something that dermatologists have known for a long time, says Bruce E. Katz, MD, the medical director of the JUVA Skin and Laser Center in New York City. "A lot of sunscreens that claim to be waterproof really are not," he says. "They may be water-resistant, but people still have to reapply sunscreen after swimming or perspiring after sports." The truth is there is not a reliable way to measure UVA, he says. "Sun protection factor (SPF) is really is a measure of UVB, not UVA, so that is definitely an issue. Other sun safety tips include avoiding sun exposure from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. (when the sun is the strongest) and wearing protective clothing, a hat with a wide rim, and sunglasses. "It's not a good idea to rely solely on your sunscreen," Katz says.

The lawsuit seeks to recover money that consumers spent on sunscreen products. Every year, consumers spend $445 million on sunscreens and tanning products. The lawsuit suit packs a potentially major economic punch to the companies.


At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints.

Other Consumer Products Cases of Interest

The parties have reached a tentative $2.3 million settlement of a class action filed against dietary supplements maker PharmaPrint, Inc. (Pink Sheets: PPRT, formerly OTCBB: PPRT) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between July 1 and November 15, 1999.
 
Lawyers plan to seek financial compensation for more than 14 million Americans who paid too much for heating and cooking fuel because British Petroleum (BP) oil compay allegedly manipulated the market for propane.
 
A national class action has been filed in Utah against German automaker Volkswagen of America, Inc. The action is brought in behalf of all U.S. residents who have purchased or leased 2002-2003 Volkswagen Jetta automobiles with factory installed heated seats. The Jetta owners allege that the seats are defective and overheat, causing property damage and bodily harm. The action only seeks to establish a fund to repair and or replace the defective seats, it does not seek any damages for personal injury. The action is brought under the theory of strict liability, claiming the seats were a defective design as well as claims for breach of implied and express warranties, negligence and a failure to warn Jetta drivers of the risk of harm and property damage.
 
A class action has been filed against jewelry chain story operator Friedman's Inc. (NYSE: FRM) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between January 26, 2000 and November 11, 2003. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock.
 
On April 16, 2002, Ames True Temper, Inc. recalled about 650,000 wheelbarrows as a result of possible issues with plastic assemblies and rims. When filled with compressed air, the plastic wheelbarrow rims may break or even explode. This can cause plastic shards from the explosion to fly out possibly injuring consumers.
 
A purported class action lawsuit had been filed in the Northern District Court of Indiana against Indiana based retailer Homier Distributing Company, Inc., DBA Homier Mobile Merchants, for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Class members sought unpaid overtime compensation, costs and attorney’s fees.
 
Become a LawCash Member - FREE!
'Find Money' E-Book
Weekly Email Alerts




privacy policy
YouNewz Beta
IT'S FREE

Report

Report Newz and easily upload your own newzworthy photos from your cell phone or computer to the web.

Share

Quickly share your photos with family, friends, co-workers, or the world with your own Newzpaper.

Read

Instantly find Newz and photos from other YouNewzers and read other YouNewzers Newzpapers.
 
Class Action Lawsuit Center || Product Recall Center || Consumer Complaint Center || About LawCash Link Exchange
Privacy Policy || Legal Policies || Terms & Conditions || Website Advertising Policy || Site Map || Top Lawsuits
LawCash® is a service of nola3, llc
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.

[ Home ]
LawCash
login
Justice is a click away.