Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Consumer Law Blogs -> 43(B)log
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense
Find a Local Lawyer
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402
Consumer Law
: 43(B)logA touch of false advertising
By Rebecca Tushnet
Schering-Plough Healthcare Products, Inc. v. Neutrogena Corp., 2010 WL 1992247 (D. Del.)A very short opinion granting summary judgment on a falsity claim. The ads at issue here were for Neutrogena?s new Ultra Sheer Dry-Touch Sunblock SPF 100k sunscreen. Schering-Plough argued that the package and print ads falsely claimed that the 100k product contained Helioplex, a proprietary photostabilizing agent. Helioplex is the term Neutrogena adopted for a patented combination of avobenzone with diethylhexyl 2,6-naphthalate [ ("DEHN") ] and oxybenzone that prevented avobenzone (the sunscreen) from breaking down when exposed to sunlight. The court relied on this definition, supplied by Neutrogena, at previous stages in this litigation, and Neutrogena used the same definition in §43(a) litigation against Loreal. The problem was that the 100k product, though Helioplex-branded, didn?t contain DEHN until February 2010.
Neutrogena argued that Helioplex need not, by definition, contain DEHN. The court disagreed, because Neutrogena expressly defined Helioplex in its ads to the consuming public to include ?DEHN (a stabilizer),? stating that ?stabilization prevents bond breakage, allowing avobenzone to continue providing high UVA protection.? The public had no basis on which to perceive any flexibility in the formula.
Because of the literal falsity, confusion was presumed. The scope and duration of the violation was unclear; discovery had not yet occurred. The court therefore deferred issues of remedy.
Comment: materiality seems to be an issue. On the other hand, I don?t think that the proliferation of jargon does consumers much good. If Neutrogena is going to tell people that its product is better because it has Helioplex, it?s not too much to ask for that claim to mean something in particular?especially if Neutrogena ran ads explaining what it meant, and wants consumers to see Helioplex as a consistent product benefit of Neutrogena products.
Full post as published by 43(B)log on May 24, 2010 (boomark / email).
Kimkins
alleging false advertising of online dieting.
Comcast Corp.
alleging false advertising related to the speed of its Internet service.
Activision
alleging false advertising of games for Nintendo Wii, that do not support Dolby Pro Logic II surround sound.
Convicted Caretakers
Senior care center agrees to $175,000 settlement in false advertising lawsuit.
Airborne Settlement
Company agrees to pay consumers $23.3 million class action settlement for false advertising.
Food/Supplements
involving food poisoning, food product recalls, false advertising or labeling, vitamin, weight loss and diet supplement issues.

Article on Peer Promotions and False Advertising Law
California judge blunts Internet false advertising law (Reuters via Yahoo! News)
False Advertising Claims by Syncsort Dismissed
Trademarks as False Advertising
Airborne Settles False Advertising Lawsuit for $23.3 Million
Importnant News During Cold Season: Airborne Settles False Advertising Class Action








