Class Action Challenges ‘Waterproof,’ ‘Impenetrable UV Protection’ Claims on Certain MISSHA, A’PIEU Sunscreens

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action claims that certain MISSHA and A’PIEU sunscreens are falsely advertised as waterproof, sweatproof and able to block “all UV rays.”

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

The 53-page class action lawsuit alleges that defendant Able C&C, in an effort to get a leg up in the billion-dollar sun protection market, has used “false, deceptive, misleading and unfair” statements about the nature of the following products:

• MISSHA All Around Safe Block Waterproof Sun Milk;
• A’PIEU Pure Block Waterproof Sun Cream;
• MISSHA All Around Safe Block Essence Sun Milk; and
• MISSHA All Around Safe Block Soft Finish Sun Milk.

Although the company has advertised MISSHA Waterproof Sun Milk and A’PIEU Waterproof Sun Cream as products that don’t wash off with water or sweat, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has asserted that “[t]here’s no such thing as waterproof sunscreen,” the lawsuit contends.

As such, companies are expressly prohibited under federal regulations from claiming that a sunscreen is “waterproof” or “sweatproof,” the filing relays.

Similarly, federal regulations prohibit companies from describing products as “sunblock” since no sunscreen blocks the sun’s ultraviolet (UV) rays entirely, the complaint explains. Nevertheless, Able C&C deceptively markets MISSHA Essence Sun Milk and MISSHA Soft Finish Sun Milk as able to provide “impenetrable UV protection” that blocks “all UV rays,” the suit charges.

“The above-referenced claims were material to reasonable consumers, who are concerned about the dangers of UV exposure and often seek out sunscreen products precisely for the purpose of wearing them outdoors while sweating or in and around water,” the case shares.

According to the lawsuit, consumers would not have bought the MISSHA and A’PIEU sunscreens, or they would have paid less for them, had they known that none of the products are waterproof, sweatproof or capable of preventing all UV exposure. As a result, the filing argues, the defendant has illegally profited from misrepresentations about the nature and quality of its sunscreens.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased any of the products listed on this page 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.