4e Brands Hit with Class Action After ‘Inadequate’ Recall of Blumens, Assured Hand Sanitizers Tainted with Methanol

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Fifteen varieties of hand sanitizer made and sold by 4e Brands are mislabeled as containing ethanol as their active ingredient despite the fact that the products are “contaminated” with methanol, a toxic substance with which humans should not come into contact, a proposed class action alleges.

According to the 19-page lawsuit, the hand sanitizers, which were voluntarily recalled by 4e Brands in July 2020, are defective in that exposure to methanol—a volatile, flammable substance otherwise known as wood alcohol and used to create fuel, solvents and antifreeze—can cause nausea, vomiting, headache, blurred vision, permanent blindness, seizures, coma, permanent nervous system damage or death.

In all, the presence of methanol in defendant 4E Brand North America, LLC’s hand sanitizers renders the products unsuitable for their intended use and worthless, the complaint says, describing the company’s recall as “woefully insufficient.” 

Per the lawsuit, the specific varieties of 4e Brands’ hand sanitizer tainted by methanol include: 

Though each product is prominently labeled as a hand sanitizer and lists 70 percent ethyl alcohol, or ethanol, as the active ingredient, none of the hand sanitizers’ labels disclose that the products contain methanol, or that the active ingredient is, “to a large extent,” methanol, and not ethyl alcohol, the case claims. 

As the suit tells it, the distinction between ethanol and methanol is critical in that while ethyl alcohol is an accepted ingredient for hand sanitizers, methanol is a toxic substance that should not be consumed by or come into contact with humans. The plaintiffs, New York consumers who the suit says bought the defendants’ hand sanitizers amid the COVID-19 pandemic, would not have purchased the products had they known the contents posed a significant health risk, according to the complaint.

“Simply put, the Defect renders the products not suitable for human use or consumption,” the case says.

In June 2020, the FDA issued a warning to consumers about hand sanitizer products that contained methanol, suggesting that the products at issue were made by Eskbiochem manufacturers, the lawsuit relays. On July 2, the FDA issued a second warning with regard to more products tainted by the presence of methanol, stating bluntly that the chemical was not an acceptable active ingredient for hand sanitizers and could be toxic when absorbed through the skin and life-threatening if ingested, according to the case. 

On July 8, the FDA added each of the above-listed 4e Brands products to the list of hand sanitizers labeled as containing ethanol but were, in truth, contaminated with methanol and accordingly should not be used by consumers, the lawsuit says.

In another warning, issued July 27, the FDA stated a consumer had died after using one of the defendant’s Blumen products containing methanol, the case says, noting that the agency strongly urged consumers to be vigilant with regard to which hand sanitizers they use, among other warnings.

After voluntarily recalling 10 bottle sizes of Blumen-brand hand sanitizer on July 11, 4e Brands issued a total recall of every hand sanitizer listed above, regardless of size, UPC or lot number, according to the complaint.

As the lawsuit tells it, however, the defendant’s recall of its hand sanitizers was “woefully insufficient” in that it was done such that 4e Brands “could claim it did the right thing” in response to the methanol contamination. The suit claims the defendant issued the recall, in truth, in a calculated effort to “protect 4e Brands’ profits by ensuring as few returns as possible.” 

From the complaint: 

“Instead of publicly offering an immediate refund, 4e Brands instructed consumers to ‘stop using the product and return it to the place of purchase,’ and that ‘[c]onsumers should contact their physician or healthcare provider if they experienced any problems.’ As an initial matter, most consumer [sic] could not obtain a recall for the simple fact that they had discarded the Products either after use or after learning of the Defect, meaning that they could not take the products in to the place of purchase for a refund. And, still other consumers that tried to follow Defendant’s instruction to return the products to the place of purchase could not obtain a refund in such manner either.” 

Still further, no indication exists that the defendant intends to provide consumers with any sort of refund, the complaint relays. 

The lawsuit looks to represent consumers across the United States, as well as a New York-only subclass, who bought any of the hand sanitizers listed above. The case’s filing comes amid a flurry of recent lawsuits centered on hand sanitizers, with consumers alleging products made and sold by Vi-Jon, REI, Purell, Target and Germ-X, among others, do not work as well as advertised. 

ClassAction.org’s coverage of COVID-19 litigation can be found here and over on our Newswire.

Sign up for ClassAction.org’s newsletter here.