1. HBW Insight
  2. >>Beauty
  3. >>Policy & Regulation
  4. >>Legal

Rodan + Fields Concealed Prostaglandin Risks From Lash Boost Users – Class Action

 
• By Ryan Nelson

Marketers of cosmetic lash enhancers that haven’t abandoned prostaglandin analogs in favor of peptides or botanical extracts should take heed of a proposed class action against Rodan + Fields in California’s Northern District. Plaintiffs say they would not have purchased the firm’s Lash Boost and suffered alleged adverse effects if they’d been properly informed about product risks.

Female eye with long eyelashes close up. Closeup shot of female gray - blue colour eye with day makeup. Beauty female eye with curl long eyelashes

A putative class action targeting Rodan + Fields, LLC in California federal court could draw fresh attention to the use of prostaglandin analogs in cosmetic eyelash enhancers, an issue that has sparked FDA enforcement action in the past, as well as unfair competition suits from Latisse owner Allergan plc.

Filed April 13 in California’s Northern District, Oakland Division, the suit is based on the premise that “disclosing the true risks and side effects of Lash Boost on the product...

Read the full article – start your free trial today!

Join thousands of industry professionals who rely on HBW Insight for daily insights

  • Start your 7-day free trial
  • Explore trusted news, analysis, and insights
  • Access comprehensive global coverage
  • Enjoy instant access – no credit card required
Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber?

More from Legal

Supreme Court 1935 Ruling Limiting Executive Authority On Appointments ‘Unravels’ Today – DoJ

 
• By Malcolm Spicer

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.

Estee Lauder Faces Securities Fraud Suit After District Court Denies Motion To Dismiss

 
• By Eileen Francis

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.

Uncertainty Abounds With SEC Climate Reporting Rule Tied Up In Courts

 
• By Lauren Nardella

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.

In Emergency Rule, California Bans All THCs In Hemp Products: Industry Asks, Where’s The Fire?

 
• By Malcolm Spicer

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.

More from Policy & Regulation

Beauty Industry Not Taking Advantage Of CBP’s Duty Drawback – IBA Conference

 
• By Eileen Francis

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 Firms Confused By State EPR Laws Have New Resource: EPR Academy

 
• By Eileen Francis

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.

Supreme Court 1935 Ruling Limiting Executive Authority On Appointments ‘Unravels’ Today – DoJ

 
• By Malcolm Spicer

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.