IcyHot Patch

Fuller et al v. Chattem, Inc.
21-cv-5436, N.D. Cal.
(April 2021)

IcyHot Patch

Making misleading pain relief claims

Misleadingly marketing the product as “Max Strength Lidocaine” when other products deliver more lidocaine and are more effective

Misleadingly marketing the patch as “fast acting” when it does not provide immediate pain relief

Falsely claiming that the product provides 12 hours of pain relief when it does not stay on for even six hours

Falsely marketing product as compliant with FDA regulations when it is not

Pending

UIC Aspire Grant

TINA.org digs into school’s debt-free claims.

Why agency independence is in the best interests of consumers.

What exactly does this running brand mean by “your return is on us”?

Be wary of “natural” claims.

Lawsuits throw the red flag on a number of DFS platforms.