As we speak’s visitor put up is by Amy McVeigh and Jessica Farmer, who’re companions at Holland & Knight. They touch upon the demise of one other purported class motion in opposition to a producer of hydrogen peroxide, which is an FDA-regulated over-the-counter (“OTC”) drug. As all the time our visitor posters deserve 100% of the credit score (and any blame) for for his or her work.
**********
As we speak’s put up dives into the fizz of authorized battles over the adequacy of labeling of over-the-counter (“OTC”) hydrogen peroxide. You would possibly assume hydrogen peroxide is only a humble brown bottle in your medication cupboard, revered for its old-timey wound-cleaning prowess and its uncanny potential to bleach your hair in moments of teenage rise up. However what’s actually behind that label in your bottle of H2O2? And is it deceptive to say that it may be used to “deal with” minor cuts and abrasions?
The Western District of Michigan stated “No” to the latter query within the newest OTC preemption choice involving a hydrogen peroxide product, Bridges v. Meijer, Inc.,2024 WL 1007883, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 20, 2024), report and suggestion adopted sub nom. Lashan Bridges, Plaintiff, v. Meijer, Inc., Defendant, No. 1:22-CV-1112, 2024 WL 1141865 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 15, 2024). Frequent readers could recall a prior put up specializing in an identical choice out of the Northern District of Illinois, Novotney v. Walgreen Co., — F. Supp. 3d —, 2023 WL 4698149 (N.D. In poor health. July 20, 2023). This newest casebuilds on Novotney and likewise will get it proper.
Hydrogen peroxide has lengthy been offered over-the-counter as a primary assist antiseptic. Like different OTC merchandise, the FDA regulates hydrogen peroxide merchandise by means of a monograph course of. A “monograph” is an in depth regulation describing the situations beneath which a category of medicine could be marketed and not using a prescription. See 21 C.F.R. § 330.1; Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. U.S. Meals & Drug Admin., 710 F.3d 71, 75 (second Cir. 2013) (describing monograph course of). It is sort of a “recipe” for that specific product which, amongst different issues, units out labeling necessities. NRDC, 710 F.3d at 75.
In Bridges, the plaintiff asserted quite a lot of state-law claims claiming that Meijer’s private-label hydrogen peroxide resolution was “misbranded” as a result of it was promoted “For Therapy of Minor Cuts and Abrasions.” Like different latest hydrogen peroxide instances, plaintiff argued that the phrase “therapy” on the label was deceptive as a result of the phrase “deal with” means to “heal” or “remedy” and hydrogen peroxide couldn’t, really, heal or remedy cuts or abrasions. She alleged that she paid a premium for the product—of not less than $1.29—based mostly on her understanding of the phrase “deal with” and sought to certify financial loss lessons of Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, and Wisconsin residents.
After all, Weblog devotees and preemption lovers know that with respect to OTC merchandise, Congress prohibited the states from establishing “any requirement … that’s completely different from or along with, or that’s in any other case not equivalent with, a requirement” imposed beneath federal regulation. 21. U.S.C. § 379r(a)(2). Plaintiff argued that her state regulation claims weren’t preempted by this provision as a result of the FDA by no means endorsed the labeling of hydrogen peroxide for “therapy” functions and since “hydrogen peroxide doesn’t deal with minor cuts and abrasions as a result of no proof helps a connection between the variety of micro organism and discount in therapeutic time of a clear wound.” However as Defendants identified, the FDA itself used the phrase “deal with” greater than 50 occasions within the monograph, and used it to imply “give medical care to” or “apply topically.” See Topical Antimicrobial Drug Merchandise for Over-the-Counter Human Use; Tentative Closing Monograph for First Support Antiseptic Drug Merchandise, 56 Fed. Reg. 33651; 33655, 1991 WL 303853 (Jul. 22, 1991).
Finally, relying closely on Novotney’s reasoning, the Court docket held that the product’s labeling complied with FDA requirements, citing Novotney’s conclusion that “by claiming that another terminology is critical to make sure that the label shouldn’t be deceptive, plaintiff impermissibly claims that state regulation imposes necessities which can be completely different from, extra to, or in any other case not equivalent with, the necessities of the FDCA. 2024 WL 1007883 at *3 (citing Novotney v. Walgreen Co., No. 22 C 3439, 2023 WL 4698149, — F. Supp. 3d — (N.D. In poor health. July 23, 2023)). The Court docket due to this fact dismissed all of plaintiff’s state regulation claims as expressly preempted beneath 379(r).
Having allotted with the state regulation claims, the Court docket subsequent turned to the lone declare introduced beneath federal regulation: violation of the Magnusson-Moss Guarantee Act (“MMWA”). To state an MMWA declare, nonetheless, a plaintiff wants a viable, underlying state regulation breach of guarantee declare. The Court docket rightly held—like others earlier than it—that when the underlying breach of guarantee claims beneath state regulation are preempted, the MMWA declare should even be dismissed, stating “plaintiff’s MMWA declare fails as a result of she has no state regulation guarantee declare with respect to the Product or its label as a “therapy;” any such state regulation declare is preempted by federal regulation.” 2024 WL 1007883 at *3; see additionally In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Prod. Liab. Litig., 510 F. Supp. 3d 1141, 1172, (S.D. Fla. 2020).
In sum, it isn’t deceptive to say that hydrogen peroxide can be utilized for therapy of minor cuts and abrasions. However the everlasting query stays for an additional day: “who’s chargeable for my hair turning orange?”
Supply hyperlink
