Listerine Total Care Mouthwash

June 2015: The parties withdrew the appeal, the reasons for which have not been disclosed.

December 2014: The named plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal regarding the November 2014 order.

November 2014: A federal judge granted Johnson & Johnson’s motion to dismiss this lawsuit finding, among other things, that because the FDA sets out labeling requirements for over-the-counter dental hygiene products, state law (which plaintiffs relied on in bringing this lawsuit) is preempted by the federal Food Drug and Cosmetics Act.

May 2014: A false advertising class-action lawsuit was filed against Johnson & Johnson. The complaint alleges that the company misleadingly claims its mouthwashes – including Listerine Total Care Fresh Mint Anticavity Mouthwash, Listerine Total Care Zero Fresh Mint Anticavity Mouthwash, Listerine Total Care Cinnamint Anticavity Mouthwash, and Listerine Total Care Plus Whitening – “restore[] enamel” when, in reality, mouthwashes cannot replace lost tooth enamel. (Bowling et al v. Johnson & Johnson, McNeil-PPC, Inc., and Johnson & Johnson Healthcare Products, Case No. 14-cv-03727, S. D. NY.).

For more information about the advertising of mouthwash, click here.

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

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 TINA.org’s opinion with respect to the lawsuits or disposition of the cases

  • Sign Up for E-mail Updates