Aveeno and Neutrogena Sunscreens

August 2015: A federal judge granted Johnson & Johnson’s and Neutrogena’s motion for summary judgment finding that there are no issues of material fact because the companies provided evidence that:

• The named plaintiff purchased the products in the spring of 2012, and a December 2013 court order dismissed claims regarding products sold on or after June 17, 2011;
• The named plaintiff did not suffer damages; and
• The companies did not engage in deceptive conduct that injured the named plaintiff.

September 2014: A federal judge allowed false advertising allegations in a class-action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and Neutrogena to move forward. The complaint, which was originally filed in 2013, alleges that, among other things, the company misleadingly uses phrases such as “waterproof” and “sunblock” in the marketing of several sunscreens – including Aveeno Active Naturals Continuous Protection Waterproof Sunblock Lotions and Ultra Sheer Dry-Touch Waterproof Sunblock – when, in reality, the FDA has identified these terms as false and misleading. (Lombardo et al v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. and Neutrogena Corporation, Case No. 13-cv-60536, S. D. FL.).

For more information about other class-action lawsuits filed against Johnson & Johnson and TINA.org’s coverage of the company, click here.

For more information about other class-action lawsuits filed against Neutrogena and TINA.org’s coverage of the company, click here.

For more information about other class-action lawsuits regarding Aveeno products and TINA’s coverage of the products, click here.

For more information about sunscreens, click here.