Sunscreen Ads Burn Buyers, Suit Says
A San Diego law firm best known for going after Enron Corp. and other companies on behalf of shareholders has found a new target: sunscreen manufacturers.
Lawyers with Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins alleged in a suit Thursday that the makers of Coppertone and other popular brands of sunscreen are slathering consumers with lies about how well the lotions guard against the sun’s harmful rays.
The proposed class-action suit filed in Los Angeles attacks sunscreen labels and ads as false and misleading, saying they suggest the products fully block out the harmful effects of the sun.
In fact, the suit contends, sunscreens offer some protection against the burning effects of UVB rays, but research indicates that they don’t block all UVA rays, which can cause skin cancer, aging and wrinkling.
The alleged hype has created a false sense of security among sun worshipers and helped expose millions of people to the sun’s ultraviolet radiation, the leading cause of skin cancer, the suit says.
“Sunscreen is the snake oil of the 21st century,” Lerach partner Samuel Rudman said. “False claims such as ‘sunblock,’ ‘waterproof’ and ‘all-day protection’ should be removed from these products immediately.”
Coppertone maker Schering-Plough Corp. has “vigorously disputed” the allegations, spokeswoman Denise Foy said. Schering-Plough and Neutrogena Corp., a Johnson & Johnson company based in Los Angeles, said all of their sunscreens complied with Food and Drug Administration rules.
The suit does not make personal injury claims. Rather, it consolidates allegations made in nine false-claims complaints filed on behalf of consumers by several lawyers and seeks refunds for anyone who bought a falsely advertised sunscreen. Lawyers said they would ask the court to force manufacturers to give up earnings from the sales of any falsely advertised product.
More than $455 million worth of sunscreen and tanning lotions are sold annually, much of it by the companies named in the suit. They include Playtex Products Inc., Tanning Research Laboratories Inc. and Chattem Inc. Brands include Banana Boat, Hawaiian Tropic and Bullfrog.
The plaintiffs’ lawyers said the FDA sunscreen rules were weak -- in part because the industry had succeeded in thwarting the implementation of a stricter proposal five years ago. That rule would have banned the use of terms such as “sunblock,” “waterproof” and “all-day wear” in labels and ads, said Mitchell Twersky, a New York lawyer involved in the case.
At the time, the FDA wrote that it was concerned that the term “sunblock” could “mislead or confuse consumers into thinking that the product blocks all light from the sun.”
Dr. Charles Ganley, director of the FDA’s Office of Nonprescription Products, said the agency delayed the rule to wait for consensus on a method of testing for UVA protection.
If the FDA imposed rules too frequently, “companies would have to relabel products repeatedly over a short period of time,” Ganley said. “In most of these [rule] documents, there are economic impacts
Patrick Dorton, a spokesman for the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Assn., said the industry had worked with the FDA to “make sure consumers had more information and more truthful information.”
As many sunscreen labels note, consumers need to reapply often and take other precautions, such as staying out of the midday sun and wearing hats, said Dr. Richard G. Glogau, a San Francisco dermatologist.
