in Newswire Published on July 12, 2022

Coppertone Sport Mineral Face Sunscreen is ‘Exactly the Same’ as Regular Variety, Class Action Claims [DISMISSED]

Last Updated on September 23, 2024

Akes v. Beiersdorf, Inc.

Filed: July 11, 2022 ◆§ 3:22-cv-00869

A class action says Coppertone Sport Mineral Face sunscreen buyers have been duped into paying twice as much for a product that is “exactly the same” as the regular Coppertone Sport Mineral lotion variety.

Defendant(s)

Beiersdorf, Inc.

Law(s)

Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act California Business and Professions Code New York General Business Law California Unfair Competition Law Missouri Merchandising Practices Act Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act Maryland Unfair Trade Practices Act

State(s)

Connecticut

September 19, 2024 – Coppertone Sport Mineral Sunscreen Lawsuit Dismissed

The proposed class action lawsuit detailed on this page was dismissed on August 26, 2024.

A joint stipulation submitted to the court on August 22 states that the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their claims against defendant Beiersdorf, Inc. without prejudice. The document states no reason as to why the parties elected to drop the case.

United States District Judge Sarala V. Nagala officially closed the case four days later.

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

A proposed class action says that Coppertone Sport Mineral Face sunscreen buyers have been duped into paying twice as much for a product that is “exactly the same” as the regular Coppertone Sport Mineral lotion variety.

The 22-page lawsuit says that although reasonable consumers have been led to believe the Coppertone Sport Mineral Face sunscreen is designed specifically for use on the face, defendant Beiersdorf, Inc. has essentially put the same sunscreen in two different bottles with different labels.

“Consumers are being deceived and overcharged,” the complaint alleges, noting that the Sport Mineral Face sunscreen costs “twice as much” as its regular counterpart.

Per the case, the labels of the two sunscreens are “almost identical,” with the exception that the Face lotion is prominently labeled with the word “face.” Moreover, the label includes representations that the sunscreen “won’t run into eyes” and is “oil free,” which is significant to consumers given that oil can clog pores and lead to breakouts, the lawsuit relays.

Based on the foregoing, reasonable consumers believe that the Coppertone Sport Mineral Face sunscreen is specifically formulated for use on the face, and that “there is something different about [the product] that makes it better suited for use on the face” in comparison to the regular variety, the complaint says.

The truth, the lawsuit claims, is that the two sunscreens are the same, and that neither is more expensive to manufacture than the other.

“Defendant is taking the same exact product and putting it in two different bottles, one prominently marked ‘FACE’ and one not,” the case says. “And then it is charging twice as much for the sunscreen in the bottle marked ‘FACE.’”

The suit looks to cover all consumers who bought a Coppertone Sport Mineral Face product in the United States during the applicable statute of limitations period.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

Case Spotlight

Hair Relaxer Lawsuits

Women who developed ovarian or uterine cancer after using hair relaxers such as Dark & Lovely and Motions may now have an opportunity to take legal action.

Read more here: Hair Relaxer Cancer Lawsuits

How Do I Join a Class Action Lawsuit?

Did you know there's usually nothing you need to do to join, sign up for, or add your name to new class action lawsuits when they're initially filed?

Read more here: How Do I Join a Class Action Lawsuit?