Sunburn Pain: Merck Settles Coppertone False Ad Suit

In an effort to make the legal equivalent of sunburn go away, Merck has agreed to pay between $3 million and $10 million to settle a consumer class action lawsuit that was filed over allegations the drugmaker falsely advertised the attributes of the venerable Coppertone sunscreen line of products to protect against ultraviolet rays.

As part of the deal, Merck agreed not to use the terms "sunblock," "waterproof," "sweatproof," "all day" and/or "all day protection" in the Coppertone labeling, advertising, marketing or promotion. And Coppertone products must contain labels that comply with federal law, according to the settlement agreement (read here. And this is the lawsuit).

As for consumers, those who can prove they purchased a Coppertone product after July 31, 2006, will receive up to just $1.50 each, subject to various adjustments. Merck, meanwhile, denies that anyone was harmed by the conduct alleged against the drugmaker, which inherited the Coppertone line as part of its $41 billion acquisition of Schering-Plough three years ago, and reached the settlement to spare further litigation costs.

pic thx to Merck

6 Comments

Sep 25, 2012 - 2:03pm
I think this is a great argument for Tort reform, which is now in its 578th year of discussion. Taking the $1.50 award one may get (minus 0.48 cents for a stamp and any added costs (if you send your letter certified or RRR), one might actually lose money on this settlement. The ones making money, as usual, are the attorneys, who will likely clear in the millions. At least no one really suffered from this lawsuit...I hope.
Sep 25, 2012 - 5:15pm
Was year I when the "kill all the lawyers" line in Shakespeare?
Sep 25, 2012 - 8:22pm
Ken, Hear!! Hear! I wish more wanna-be plaintiffs would read this. These idiot class members sign on to these ambulance chasing scams with fantasies of becoming millionaires from their litigation. Instead they get a voucher for a free bottle of Ny-Quil while the greasy ambulance chaser rakes in millions. Ask the people that Erin Brockovitch assisted. Few if any of the plaintiffs received what they thought was a fair settlement. Fortunately for Erin, she and the AC she worked for were well compensated.
Sep 25, 2012 - 9:05pm
There's a rational discussion of "tort reform" from Business Week, 2005.

http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2005-03-13/how-to-fix-the-tort-system

Jan 15, 2013 - 5:38pm
Perhaps the rest of you don't know what the aim of a lawsuit is.

Just a hint: it's to discourage a company from repeating its unlawful behavior, and to discourage other companies from engaging in unlawful behavior in the first place. That's what the societal good of a lawsuit is.

So, now, what were your objections to settlements like this? Where the company gets punished for doing something bad?

Honestly, so many people would rather feel sorry for companies than other people. It's kind of sad, really. Or maybe it's just that someone out there is making a really good living doing a GOOD THING, and punishing companies for their misdeeds, where you all are stuck in your dead-end jobs... so why should someone else have all the luck?

I dunno. Y'all baffle me.

Jan 16, 2013 - 3:03pm
Such altrusim. I'm gonna tell my lawyer to work for free.