Merck – Coppertone Sunscreen

July 2013: All of the appeals were voluntarily dismissed. To see the court orders, click here and here.

April 2013: Three objectors filed Notices of Appeal regarding the approval of the settlement. To see the notices, click on the links below.

• Batman Notice of Appeal
• Beck Notice of Appeal
• Dorego Notice of Appeal

March 2013: A federal judge granted final approval of the settlement.

September 2012: A federal judge preliminarily approved a settlement of a false advertising class-action lawsuit filed against Merck. The July 2012 complaint alleged that the company deceptively markets that Coppertone sunscreens:

• Provide “protection from the sun’s harmful UVA and UVB rays” when, in reality, they do not provide the advertised protection;
• Are “waterproof” and “sweatproof” when, in reality, the protection provided by the sunscreen diminished after exposure to water or sweat; and
• Are “sunblock lotions” when, in reality, the sunscreens do not block all of the sun’s harmful rays.

According to the settlement terms, class members may receive up to $1.50 for each product purchased. Class members requesting relief for up to six products do not need proof of purchase while class members requesting relief for ten or more products must have proof of purchase (class members requesting relief for seven to nine products may be required to show proof of purchase). In addition, Merck agreed to not use the terms “sunblock,” “waterproof,” “sweatproof,” “all day,” and “all day protection” in the marketing for Coppertone sunscreens. The settlement also provides money to three cy pres recipients: Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Legal Services of New York City, and Legal Services of New Jersey. A final fairness hearing is scheduled for February 20, 2013. (Steven Brody, et al. vs. Merck & Co., Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-4774, D. NJ.)

For more information about class-action lawsuits regarding sunscreens and TINA.org’s coverage of the product, click here.