Lotrimin Tinactin Class Action Lawsuit: Purchasers of Lotrimin and/or Tinactin Filed a Class Action Lawsuit Complaint Against Aeropres, Beiersdorf and Bayer Alleged Failure to Disclose Benzene.
Lotrimin Tinactin Benzene Class Action Lawsuit
On September 14, 2023, a class action lawsuit complaint was reportedly filed against Aeropres Corporation (“Aeropres”), Beiersdorf Manufacturing, LLC, Beiersdorf, Inc., Beiersdorf North America, Inc. (collectively, “Beiersdorf”), and Bayer Healthcare LLC (“Bayer,” and together with the Beiersdorf Defendants and Aeropres, “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (styled Darrell Stewart, et. al. v. Aeropres Corporation, Bayer Healthcare LLC, Beiersdorf Manufacturing, LLC, Beiersdorf, Inc. and Beiersdorf North America, Inc., Class Action Case No. 1:23-cv-13207) alleging, among other things, that Defendants manufactured, distributed, and/or sold Lotrimin (Miconazole Nitrate) and Tinactin (Tolnaftate) spray products (which are anti-fungal medications) without disclosing that the products contained high levels of benzene, a carcinogenic impurity that has been linked to leukemia and other cancers.
According to the Lotrimin Tinactin lawsuit complaint, the “Drug Facts” section of the Lotrimin and Tinactin products at issue allegedly list the active and inactive ingredients in the products, but nowhere in that section, or on the labels in general, is “benzene” listed as an active or inactive ingredient.
Who Is Included In The Proposed Lotrimin Tinactin Class Action Lawsuit?
The Lotrimin Tinactin class action lawsuit is reportedly brought on behalf of and includes, unless otherwise excluded, the following putative class members who bought Lotrimin spray products:
All persons in the United States who purchased the following Lotrimin spray products between September 2018 and September 2021(the “Lotrimin Class”):
- (1) Lotrimin Anti-Fungal (AF) Athlete’s Foot Powder Spray;
- (2) Lotrimin Anti-Fungal Jock Itch (AFJI) Athlete’s Foot Powder Spray;
- (3) Lotrimin Anti-Fungal (AF) Athlete’s Foot Deodorant Powder Spray;
- (4) Lotrimin AF Athlete’s Foot Liquid Spray;
- (5) Lotrimin AF Athlete’s Foot Daily Prevention Deodorant Powder Spray.
The Lotrimin Tinactin class action lawsuit is also brought on behalf of and includes, unless otherwise excluded, the following putative class members who bought Tinactin spray products:
All persons in the United States who purchased the following Tinactin spray products between September 2018 and September 2021 (the “Tinactin Class”) (collectively with the Lotrimin Class, the “Nationwide Classes”):
- (1) Tinactin® Jock Itch (JI) Powder Spray;
- (2) Tinactin® Athlete’s Foot Deodorant Powder Spray;
- (3) Tinactin® Athlete’s Foot Powder Spray; and
- (4) Tinactin® Athlete’s Foot Liquid Spray.
In addition, the plaintiffs seek to represent numerous state “Subclasses” for those who purchased certain products in New York, Missouri, Indiana, South Carolina, Delaware, Massachusetts, and California.
What Claims Are Alleged In The Lotrimin Tinactin Class Action Lawsuit?
The Tinactin Lotrimin class action lawsuit complaint asserts the following alleged claims for relief against one or more defendant:
- Claim 1: Breach Of Express Warranty
- Claim 2: Breach Of Implied Warranty
- Claim 3: Fraud
- Claim 4: Unjust Enrichment
- Claim 5: Negligent Misrepresentation
The Tinactin Lotrimin class action lawsuit complaint also asserts 12 additional claims on behalf of various state subclasses including: Claim 6: Violation Of The Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, 6 Del. C. §§ 2511; Claim 7: Violation Of The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. §§ 56:8-1; Claim 8: Violation Of New York General Business Law § 349; Claim 9: Violation Of New York General Business Law § 350; Claim 10: Violation Of The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 407.010; Claim 11: Violation Of The Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, Ind. Code §§ 24-5-0.5-0.1; Claim 12: Violation Of South Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, S.C. Code §§ 39-5-10 ;Claim 13: Violation Of The Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93, §§1; Claim 14: Violation Of The Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, 6 Del. C §§ 2511; Claim 15: Violation Of The California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750; Claim 16: Violation Of The California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200; and Claim 17: Violation Of The California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500.
What Remedy Is The Putative Class Seeking In The Tinactin Lotrimin Class Action Lawsuit?
The plaintiff and the proposed class members in the Tinactin Lotrimin class action lawsuit allegedly seek, among other things, the following relief:
- An order certifying the Classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- An order for declaratory relief
- An order finding in favor of Plaintiffs and the Classes on all counts asserted
- An award of compensatory, actual, statutory, and punitive damages
- Injunctive relief
- An order of restitution and other equitable monetary relief
- An order awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses and costs
- Pre-judgment interest