May 2015: All of the claims in this action were dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled..
May 2014: A federal judge stayed the action in this case pending the outcome of a global settlement in a related case in a New York court. For more information about this New York case, click here.
November 2013: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Walgreen Co. for allegedly deceptively promising that its joint supplements containing glucosamine and/or chondroitin would “rebuild cartilage” when, in reality, there is no scientific evidence to support such claims and the company knows it is impossible to “rebuild cartilage” that has been lost or damaged. (Gross et al v. Walgreen Co., Case No. 13-cv-06630, D. NJ.).
For more information about other class-action lawsuits against other glucosamine and chondroitin supplement makers, click here.
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing that products boost free testosterone levels, increase lean muscle mass, strength, and endurance, and improve sexual function in men when none of the ingredients provide the advertised…
Allegations: Falsely advertising the accuracy of ovulation test kits
Allegations: Falsely marketing that products contain no preservatives when they contain preservative ingredients
Allegations: Marketing products as safe without disclosing that they are contaminated with the carcinogen benzene
Allegations: Failing to disclose products contain the carcinogen benzene
Allegations: Misleadingly representing that products were safe when they contain, or were at risk of containing, the carcinogen benzene
Allegations: Falsely marketing products as recyclable
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing that products are dishwasher safe and heavy duty
Allegations: Falsely marketing that phenylephrine products treat congestion and other cold and flu symptoms
Allegations: Falsely marketing that phenylephrine products treat congestion and other cold and flu symptoms
Allegations: Falsely marketing that medicines treat nasal congestion
Allegations: Falsely marketing the products treat nasal congestion
Allegations: Falsely advertising sunscreens as waterproof
Allegations: Falsely marketing that medicines treat nasal congestion
Allegations: Falsely marketing medicines as decongestants
Allegations: Falsely marketing medicines as nasal decongestants
Allegations: Falsely marketing that medicines relieve sinus pressure and congestion
Allegations: Falsely marketing medicines as treats nasal congestion
Allegations: Falsely marketing medicines as nasal decongestants
Allegations: Falsely marketing that phenylephrine products treat congestion and other cold and flu symptoms
Allegations: Falsely marketing products as decongestants
Allegations: Falsely marketing medicines as decongestants
Allegations: Falsely marketing that products treat symptoms of pink eye
Allegations: Falsely marketing that medicines treat nasal decongestion
Allegations: Falsely marketing that medicines treat nasal congestion
Allegations: Falsely marketing the product as a “treatment” for minor cuts and abrasions without scientific evidence to support such claims
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing products as if they are more suitable for children when they contain the same formulation as the adult version
Allegations: Falsely marketing products as “Non-Drowsy”
Allegations: Marketing products as safe pain relievers for pregnant women without warning consumers that scientific evidence shows prenatal exposure to APAP can cause neurodevelopmental disorders in children
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing pain relieving lidocaine patches
Allegations: Failing to disclose that products may contain a dangerous substance that increases the risk of serious adverse health consequences and death
Allegations: Failing to disclose that products contain a harmful substance and may increase the risk of contracting invasive infections
Allegations: Marketing products as ordinary cigarettes when menthol cigarettes are more dangerous and addictive than other types of cigarettes
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing lidocaine pain relieving patches
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing its infants’ product as specifically formulated for infants and different from its Children’s Pain & Fever Acetaminophen Oral Suspension when both medications contain the same amount and…
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing products as “Maximum Strength” when other products deliver more lidocaine
Allegations: Misleadingly marketing medicines as “non-drowsy” when the active ingredient in them causes drowsiness
Allegations: Falsely marketing products as “fast-release” when they do not work faster than other products marketed as “fast-release”
Allegations: Falsely marketing that the tablets do not contain gelatin when they contain a “notable” amount of gelatin
An FDA panel’s recent findings has led to a flood of lawsuits.
FDA targets companies selling eye drops illegally marketed to treat conditions like pink eye.
Plaintiffs allege packaging misrepresents lidocaine dosages as ‘maximum strength,’ among other things.
Several products marketed as ‘non-drowsy’ contain an ingredient that causes drowsiness, lawsuits claim.
Lawsuits claim infant-specific products aren’t any different than acetaminophen medications for older children.