What Lawsuits Reveal About Acne Product Testing
Many acne products promise clear skin through strong claims about their testing and ingredients, but lawsuits show these promises often lack solid proof. Consumers have filed cases against brands like St. Ives and Target’s Up & Up line, pointing to issues such as harsh scrubs that irritate skin and hidden cancer-causing chemicals.[2][5]
Take the St. Ives Apricot Scrub. Two women sued the maker, Unilever, saying the product is falsely labeled as “dermatologist-tested.” They claimed its crushed apricot shells act like sandpaper, scratching and inflaming the skin instead of gently exfoliating. Dermatologists quoted in the case split opinions: some said physical scrubs can harm the skin barrier and worsen dryness, while others noted they might help with acne plugs if used right. The company defended its 30-year-old formula as trusted, but the suit sought millions for misleading ads.[2]
Target faced a similar hit with its Up & Up acne treatments containing benzoyl peroxide. A class action lawsuit accused the store of hiding benzene, a known carcinogen, in these products. Benzene is not listed on labels, and testers found unsafe levels, raising fears of long-term health risks for users fighting breakouts.[5]
These cases echo bigger problems in skincare. Brands often tout “clinical trials” or “dermatologist-approved” badges without real evidence. For example, Emerge Labs Organic Stem Cell Cream for Acne was named in a wrinkle cream probe where exotic ingredients and study claims turned out baseless. Federal rules from the FTC demand proof for such ads, yet companies push pricey items with hype over facts.[1][3]
Experts say proper testing should involve controlled studies showing safety and results, not just vague labels. The FDA watches cosmetics but steps in only for extreme drug-like claims or dangers like asbestos in talc powders, which it once considered mandating tests for but later dropped.[3][6] Lawsuits force companies to back up words with data, revealing that many acne fighters skip rigorous checks to save time and money.
In one anti-aging serum case, L’Oreal settled FTC charges for claiming products targeted genes for youth proteins in just days, without proof. Acne products dodge similar scrutiny until users react with rashes, burns, or worse.[3]
Consumers learn from these suits to check ingredients, seek chemical exfoliants over rough scrubs, and question bold promises. Simple habits like mild soaps and moisturizers often work better than unproven fixes.[2]
Sources
https://topclassactions.com/lawsuit-settlements/lawsuit-news/wrinkle-cream-products-under-fire-for-false-advertising/
https://www.aol.com/lifestyle/2016-12-30-st-ives-apricot-scrub-faces-lawsuit-for-causing-irritation-21644712.html
https://www.supplysidesj.com/claims/making-cosmetics-claims-to-fda-ftc-and-nad-standards
https://www.robertkinglawfirm.com/mass-torts/talcum-powder-lawsuit/
https://www.classaction.org/blog/category/beauty
https://www.infectiousdiseaseadvisor.com/news/fda-pulls-plan-to-require-asbestos-testing-in-talc-based-cosmetics/
