Babyganics Bath Products

July 2018: This case was voluntarily dismissed with prejudice because the parties reached a settlement agreement, the terms of which have not been disclosed.

September 2017: The case was stayed pending the resolution of settlement proceedings in a similar case, Mayhew v. Babyganics.

Summer 2017: A false advertising class-action lawsuit was filed against Babyganics in 2017. The complaint, which was originally filed in June and amended in July, alleges that the company misleadingly markets its bath products as “Tear Free” and gentle for infants and children when, according to the plaintiffs, scientific evidence shows that the products contain ingredients that are eye irritants. (Skeen et al v. KAS Direct, LLC d/b/a Babyganics, Case No. 17-cv-4119, S. D. NY.)

For more of’s coverage of Babyganics, click here.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled.

Tags: , , ,

Leave a Reply

Back to Top ↑
  • Search Class-Action Tracker

  • Recent Class Actions

  • The Class-Action Tracker is intended to notify consumers about false advertising class-action lawsuits filed around the country, but does not necessarily reflect’s opinion with respect to the lawsuits or disposition of the cases