Sunscreen / Sunblock False Marketing News

Nine lawsuits have been filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, accusing leading manufacturers of sunscreens, lotions and sprays of deceptively promoting their products as protection from harmful sun rays. The suits were filed in March by attorneys from Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP.

They allege that sunscreen makers have exposed millions of people to cancer and other dangers through false and misleading claims about their sunscreen's effectiveness. The suit names as defendants Johnson & Johnson Inc., Schering-Plough Corp., Playtex Products Inc., Tanning Research Laboratories Inc., and Chatham Inc. It involves such popular brands as Coppertone, Banana Boat, Hawaiian Tropic, Neutrogena and Bullfrog.

The lawsuit is not a personal injury case. What lawyers are seeking is class action status for suits against each of the manufacturers. They are also seeking to halt what they say are false claims about sunscreen. Ultraviolet rays are the leading cause of melanoma, a deadly form of skin cancer. The suit claims that the companies lied about their products' effectiveness in blocking ultraviolet rays.

"Sunscreen is the snake oil of the 21st Century," attorney Samuel Rudman told Paul Tharp of the New York Post.

The suit focuses on sunscreen labels that claim that sunscreen protects equally against the sun's harmful UVA and UVB rays.

"In truth, and in fact . . . as defendants knew or should have known, their skin protection products, at best, only protect the skin against harmful UVA rays with shorter wavelengths, while the skin remains exposed to harmful UVA rays with longer wavelengths that penetrate deep within the skin," according to the suit. The suit also focuses on how long "waterproof sunscreen" remains effective in water. The suit alleges that Banana Boat Ultra Sunblock – and other sunblocks – claims to be waterproof but it is neither waterproof nor a true sunblock.

In addition, the suits claim that products such as Coppertone Waterbabies, which is specifically aimed at children, mislead parents into believing that their children are protected. "Schering-Plough misled...the general public by representing that their Coppertone Water Babies UVA/UVB Sunblock Lotion provided 45 times a child's natural protection against both UVA and UVB rays," according to the suit. The attorneys maintain that, in fact, the product only provides that level of protection against UVB rays. "The main element being blocked is the truth," attorney Mitchell Twersky told Tharp. "They're not waterproof, and all the ingredients in the sunscreen will eventually dissolve in water."

Terms such as "sunblock," "waterproof," and "all-day protection" are regulated by the federal Food and Drug Administration. SPF designations apply only to protection from UVB rays, although sunscreen manufacturers use it to apply a similar level of UVA protection, which it does not provide, according to the suit. The FDA accepts SPF standards for UVB but there is no standard for UVA protection. Schering-Plough has corporation has vigorously denied similar allegations in the past. It's currently labeling, it says, complies with FDA regulations.

As to the allegation of deception for claiming their products are waterproof, dermatologists say they have known as much for a long time. "A lot of sunscreens that claim to be waterproof really are not," Bruce Katz, the medical director of the JUVA Skin and Laser Center in New York City, told Denise Mann at WebMD Medical News. "They may be water-resistant, but people have to re-apply sunscreen after swimming or perspiring after sports."

Because there is not a reliable way to measure UVA rays, Katz says, it's more important to know what's in a sunscreen: the most important ingredients for blocking harmful rays are zinc oxide, titanium oxide, and parsol (avo-benzone). Even then, sunscreen needs to be re-applied every two or three hours and right after sweating or swimming, Katz says. Dermatologists say it is best not to rely solely on sunscreen. It's also best to avoid exposure to the sun from late morning to early afternoon, and to wear hats, protective clothing, and sunglasses. Several dermatologists give little credence to the lawsuit. Roger Ceilly, a clinical professor of dermatology at the University of Iowa, in Iowa City, said that while sunscreen is an important part of sun safety, it's only a part. "A number of studies clearly show the benefit of sunscreen when used properly. And you need to use an adequate amount," he said. Ceilly recommends using a "shot glass size" to get adequate covering. And using sunscreen does not allow you to bake in the sun, he said.

"The concern I have about this lawsuit getting a lot of publicity is that it gives people a reason not to engage in an inconvenient but healthy behavior," he said. "If you don't use it you will be a lot worse off than you were before."

Ariel Ostad is a dermatologic surgeon and assistant clinical professor at New York University School of Medicine, in New York City. She told WebMD Medical News that sunbathers should not lay in the sun for hours and assume they are totally protected simply because they are wearing sunscreen, "Use your judgment," she said. "Sunscreen doesn't protect you 100 percent while bathing in the sun. You should sit in the shade." A Playtex spokesperson has called the complaint "false, misleading, and irresponsible."

A spokesperson for J&J's Neutrogena unit, would not comment on pending litigation but did say that Neutrogena markets sun protection products in compliance with FDA regulations and that the products are safe and effective when used as directed. Both the FDA and the Federal Trade Commission have addressed the allegedly overreaching claims of the sunscreen industry. In 1997, the FTC reached an agreement with the Schering Plough to cease and desist misrepresenting the length of time protection is provided by their products and the effectiveness of their products protection against the harmful effects of the sun. Schering-Plough allegedly has not complied with the agreement and critics say they continue to make false claims on their product. Schering-Plough Health Care Products is a global pharmaceutical and health care products developer and manufacturer with 30,000 employees around the world. The company is based in Kenilworth, N.J.

According to the Skin Cancer Foundation, more than 1.5 million skin cancers are diagnosed in the U.S. each year. And each year more than 8,000 deaths are attributed to skin cancer – more than breast, prostate, colon, and lung cancer combined. The impact of the alleged misleading claims on consumers could be enormous. Several epidemiological studies – reported by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization – have shown significantly higher risks for melanoma in users of sunscreen than in non-users. The protective effects of sunscreen can be outweighed by overexposure based on the false assumption that sunscreens completely abolish the adverse affects of ultraviolet light. And more than $445 million of sunscreen and tanning products are sold each year.

The suit seeks to stop the sunscreen manufacturers from engaging in allegedly misleading marketing practices. It also seeks to refund money it alleges was wrongfully acquired, unspecified damages for injuries suffered, and punitive damages. The case will be heard by Judge Carl J. West.