Plaintiffs (or more properly, their lawyers) across the country have been filing no-injury class actions against over-the-counter (“OTC”) drug manufacturers on a variety of cooked-up theories that have little or nothing to do with the safety or efficacy of these drugs. One such theory, that we have discussed several times, is that drugs that the FDA allows to be labeled as “rapid release” should be penalized, under state law, for using that purportedly “misleading” description. This litigation is based on one study, done years ago, that found that some “rapid release” products did not dissolve any more quickly (or less so) than other products not bearing that designation.
Continue Reading “Rapid Release” Class Action Dissolvedover the counter
Too Many Blemishes: Federal Law Preempts California Acne Treatment Case
A federal judge in California filed an important OTC preemption decision earlier this month, and it’s important because it applied federal preemption to shut down (for now) one of the many recent benzene-related consumer class actions. The case is Daugherty v. Padagis US LLC, No. 24-cv-02066, 2025 WL 2243622 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2025)…
Odds and Ends
Every week Bexis circulates an email with new, bloggable cases, but sometimes there are more new decisions than blogging days, and cases get passed over.
Here are three (relatively) recent examples
Gonzalez v. International Medical Devices, Inc., ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2025 WL 2054361 (W.D. Tex. June 20, 2025), arose from the plaintiff’s apparent…
N.D. Illinois Adds a Track to the Preemption/Benzene Album
Magistrate Recommends Dismissal of Acne OTC / Benzene Claims
Today we address two more cooked-up—literally—Valisure cases, Bodunde v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-00985-JLT-SAB, 2025 WL 1411306 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2025), and Navarro v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., No. 1:24-CV-00290-JLT-SAB, 2025 WL 1411406 (E.D. Cal. May 15, 2025).
These two cases involve legally identical magistrate recommendations that Defendant’s motions to dismiss…
Shrinking A Safe Harbor To Fit A Consumer Protection Class
In Hall v. Walgreens Boot Alliance, Inc., the Supreme Court of Washington considered a certified question from the Northern District of Illinois on an issue of Washington state law. No. 102829-6, 2025 Wash. LEXIS 145 (Wash. Mar. 20, 2025). The underlying case, a proposed consumer protection class action, involves the labeling of certain over-the-counter…
Double Shot Thursday: Express Preemption Based on an OTC Drug Monograph and The Delaney Clause and Personal Injury Litigation— FDA Delists Color Additive Red No. 3, But Will It Be Enough to Attract Even Dyed-in-the-Wool Plaintiffs Lawyers?
Like the radio stations of yore did with songs, we offer up two related posts back-to-back instead of the usual one. We cannot offer a “favorite artist” as the source of consecutive songs, we offer two posts that relate to the legal implications of some of the typical things that FDA does and has been…
Jingle Jangle, California OTC Preemption
It’s the holiday season, and we’re getting in the festive spirit. We like old-school jingle in our jangle (even though that’s not necessarily holiday themed), more recent, unquestionably holiday-focused jingle jangle, and even first-gift of Christmas jingle, But there may be nothing more festive than a rock-solid preemption win—particularly one from California. We think this one will put a spring in your step and a sparkle in your smile.
Continue Reading Jingle Jangle, California OTC PreemptionC.D. Cal. Dismisses Acne OTC/Benzene Claims as Preempted
It might seem that we talk about preemption incessantly on this blog, but a pretty good opinion from a pretty important jurisdiction went unremarked by us last September. We’ll rectify that right now. Call it an end of year clean up session.
The decision in Howard v. Alchemee, LLC, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169359…
Money for Nothing? In an About Face, This Time the Third Circuit Said “Yes”
In 2018, our blogpost on In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Products Marketing, Sales Practices & Liability Litigation, 903 F.3d 278 (3d Cir. 2018), was entitled “Money For Nothing? No Standing This Time in the Third Circuit.” There, it appeared that the Third Circuit had drawn an eminently reasonable bright line disallowing no-injury…
