HBW Insight is part of Pharma Intelligence UK Limited

This site is operated by Pharma Intelligence UK Limited, a company registered in England and Wales with company number 13787459 whose registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. The Pharma Intelligence group is owned by Caerus Topco S.à r.l. and all copyright resides with the group.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction

Biotin And ‘Healthy Hair’: Federal Pre-emption Clips False Advertising Complaint In California

Indian Ayurvedic Maker Targeted In NY Litigation Alleging Toxic Lead Levels

Executive Summary

US Ninth Circuit affirms a district court’s summary judgment in favor of Target and manufacturer of Up & Up brand biotin supplement it sells. Indian manufacturer targeted in putative class-action in New York prompted FDA’s 2016 creation of import alert category for Ayurvedic supplements.

You may also be interested in...



Distinguishing Natural Form Nutrients From Dietary Ingredients Is ‘Meaningless’ – US First Circuit

Ruling upheld Massachusetts federal court’s approval of Vitamin Shoppe’s motion for summary judgement. Complaint alleged because the firm “substantiated its claims about supplemental glutamine with evidence about naturally occurring glutamine, the claims are not substantiated” under FDA’s structure/function claim rule and FDCA doesn’t preempt state law claims.

Pre-Emption Rulings Could Brighten 'Halo Effect’ For Structure/Function Claims On Labeling

Class action plaintiffs have a narrower window to challenge structure/function claims as misleading under recent Ninth Circuit court ruling that federal law pre-empts state laws concerning product claims. A “headache” for plaintiffs, the ruling provides retailers and manufacturers cause for motions to dismiss.

Expand Federal Pre-emption In Supplement Claims Complaints? Not So Fast, Says Ninth Circuit

The ruling reverses district court’s dismissal of class action against CVS after determining the lower court erred in determining federal law pre-empted the consumer plaintiff’s state-law causes of action. It says while consumers are prohibited under California law from arguing that a product doesn’t provide a benefit that isn’t claimed, plaintiffs can demand substantiation for claims that are made.

Related Content

Topics

Latest Headlines
See All
UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

RS150902

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel