FDA’s 2016 request for contractor services to perform SPF testing on US-marketed sunscreen products has come up in litigation challenging brands’ SPF claims. The agency told Rose Sheet the issue of accurately labeled SPFs is a concern, but declined to provide further update on what it characterized as a pending matter.
Discrepancies between labeled SPFs on sunscreen products and third-party tests have raised questions about the validity of sunscreen brands’ claims, the protection consumers are receiving and the soundness of FDA’s SPF testing protocol.
Outraged consumers are taking their complaints regarding alleged SPF fraud to the federal courts.
In complaint and response to motion to dismiss, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter’s and Alvaro Bedoya’s attorneys elaborate on Supreme Court ‘s 1935 decision, Humphrey’s Executor v. US. Administration attorneys, though, contend the ruling isn’t relevant to the current FTC.
A federal judge in the Southern District of New York denied Estee Lauder’s motion to dismiss a securities fraud lawsuit filed by shareholders who said the company concealed its reliance on a gray market retail revenue stream, which ultimately caused sales and the stock price to plunge.
Despite questions surrounding the SEC rule, including disputes being litigated in the US Eighth Circuit, companies must prepare to meet the new climate disclosure requirements in addition to related mandates in California and abroad. Experts emphasize opportunities beyond compliance.
California authorities say predominance of retailers licensed to sell hemp are compliant with ban published effective on 3 October through emergency regulation. But hemp industry’s contesting the regulation in state court, arguing state authorities inappropriately used emergency action to change state law on hemp products legislature passed in 2021.
The US FDA’s 20 May expert panel on talc discussed science behind the potential carcinogenicity of the cosmetic, food and drug ingredient, the importance of ‘good science’ in evaluating the substance and the need to find alternatives in each industry.
US Customs and Border Protection’s program allowing companies to recoup fees for imported goods that were destroyed or exported is applicable in the case of most of President Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, most cosmetic companies don’t make use of it.
Beauty and personal care companies are struggling with compliance with state Extended Producer Responsibility laws, given the outstanding number of stakeholders that have still not registered products with Oregon’s EPR law, the first to go into effect.
