Biotin Supplement Suit Dismissed on Preemption Grounds
Florham Park, New Jersey, counsel Jack N. Frost, Jr. and associate Kaitlyn Stone co-authored a Drinker Biddle on Products blog post titled “Biotin Supplement Suit Dismissed on Preemption Grounds.”
In the case in question, the plaintiff filed a putative class action alleging that labeling for a brand of biotin dietary supplements was misleading under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). In dismissing the plaintiff’s case without prejudice on preemption grounds, the Northern District of California acknowledged that the plaintiff did “plausibly suggest that the drawing of … a distinction between biotin function and its supplement’s superfluous impact on the general population likely tricks many consumers” into thinking that the product “will reduce the likelihood of poor hair and skin.” Nevertheless, “this is a form of puffery the statute and regulations allow.”
The material contained in this communication is informational, general in nature and does not constitute legal advice. The material contained in this communication should not be relied upon or used without consulting a lawyer to consider your specific circumstances. This communication was published on the date specified and may not include any changes in the topics, laws, rules or regulations covered. Receipt of this communication does not establish an attorney-client relationship. In some jurisdictions, this communication may be considered attorney advertising.
Meet the Authors
