Omission of side effects in lash "cosmetic" ads was plausibly false & misleading

Lewis v. Rodan & Fields, LLC, 2019 WL 978768, No. 18-cv-02248-PJH (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2019)Nine plaintiffs brought a putative class action alleging that defendant Rodan failed to disclose that its Enhancement Lash Boost eye serum, advertised as a cosmetic designed to make eye lashes longer and more beautiful, “had harmful side effects linked to an ingredient in” the product, a synthetic prostaglandin analog. One plaintiff’s eyes changed color, another “developed a grey spot in her vision and had central serious retinopathy,” another’s eye lashes fell out and not all of them have grown back, and another “developed a rash on her eyelid[,] [ ] her eyelid became discolored and darkened, … and lashes no longer grow where [a] bump” developed. “Many of these side effects match those associated with all prostaglandin analogs.”Indeed, for these reasons, the FDA previously warned another manufacturer of…

Read more detail on Recent Advertising Law posts –

Last search terms:

Related news:

This entry was posted in Advertising Law and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply