We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 35

Class certification denied in false claims suit against beauty product manufacturer

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 31 2013

A federal court in California has denied a motion for class certification in a suit alleging that Neutrogena Corp. misled consumers by advertising

Record-breaking spending on judicial ads logged in 2012

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • January 17 2013

According to information from the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law and Justice at Stake, TV ad spending in state

Putative class alleges fraud in mascara marketing claims

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 13 2012

A California resident has filed a putative class action against Coty Inc., alleging that it falsely advertises one of its cosmetic products, Rimmel London Lash Accelerator Mascara with Grow-Lash Complex, as a product that can lengthen and thicken eyelashes in just 30 days

Putative class suit against cosmetics maker follows FDA warning letter

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 8 2012

Less than three weeks after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning letter advising Avon Products that marketing claims for some of its Anew beauty products violate the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a California resident filed a putative class action against the company claiming that class members did not get the benefit of their bargain in purchasing the products

Sherwin-Williams and PPG settle FTC charge of misleading consumers about paint

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • November 8 2012

As a result of a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) crackdown on companies that make misleading “green” claims, two of the nation’s leading paint companiesSherwin-Williams Co. and PPG Industries, Inc.have agreed to stop advertising that some of their paints are free of the potentially harmful chemicals known as volatile organic compounds (VOCs

Putative class challenges “Super Stay” lipstick advertising claims

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • October 11 2012

Plaintiffs from three states have filed a putative class action against Maybelline, LLC, alleging that the company’s marketing and promotions highlighting the long-lasting qualities of its lipstick are misleading, inaccurate and deceptive

Putative class challenges health-benefits claims for FiveFingers running shoes

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • July 19 2012

Seeking to certify a state-wide class of product purchasers, a California resident has filed a consumer fraud action against the company that makes running shoes marketed with “health benefit” claims

U.S. Supreme Court grants cert. to consider class certification question

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 28 2012

In the context of antitrust claims involving a cable service provider, the U.S. Supreme Court has decided to review “whether a district court may certify a class action without resolving whether the plaintiff class has introduced admissible evidence, including expert testimony, to show that the case is susceptible to awarding damages on a class-wide basis.”

FTC settles false ad claims against Skechers for $40 million

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 24 2012

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has settled false advertising allegations filed against a company that claimed its athletic shoes effectively strengthen muscles, cause weight loss or have other health benefits

Putative class challenges validity of ''magnetic wave technology'' therapeutic claims

  • Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 5 2012

A California resident has filed a putative statewide class action against a company that purportedly makes a line of products “labeled and advertised as possessing ‘Magnetic Wave Technology’” and “falsely implies that the magnets have a therapeutic value, when in reality there is no scientific evidence that the magnets are of any therapeutic or any other health-related value.”