CVS Aftersun Aloe Vera Moisturizing Gel

April 2019: A federal judge granted judgment in favor of CVS, Target, and Walmart in order to be consistent with the previous summary judgment ruling in favor of the other defendants. Later in the month, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the March 2019 summary judgment order.

March 2019: A federal judge granted a motion for summary judgment filed by Fruit of the Earth and Walgreens concluding that the label of the Fruit of the Earth gel is not misleading and plaintiffs did not provide enough evidence to show that the products do not provide sunburn relief.

2017: The claims of several plaintiffs were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice and the name of the case was changed to Beardsall v. CVS.

• Order Dismissing the Claims of Several Plaintiffs
• Order Dismissing Gordon’s Claims
• Order Dismissing Robertson’s Claims

Also in 2017, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding Target, Walgreens, Walmart, and Fruit of the Earth as defendants. This complaint alleges that the retailers and marketers misleadingly represent that products contain aloe vera and provide consumers with the healing and restorative benefits of aloe when, according to plaintiffs, the products do not contain detectible amounts of aloe vera.

June 2016: A class-action lawsuit was filed against CVS for, among other things, allegedly falsely labeling CVS 100% Pure Aloe Vera Gel as containing “100% pure aloe vera gel” when, according to plaintiffs, the product contains no aloe at all. (Bordenet et al v. CVS Health Corp., Case No. 16-cv-6103, N. D. Ill.)

For more information about other class-action lawsuits filed against CVS and TINA.org’s coverage of the company, click here.