A ruling in the Plaintiffs’ favor could open up a new field of litigation; going after Dermatologists, and perhaps the AAD itself, for having actually increased the incidence of cancer in this country.
As we all know, anything is possible in the world of American law and the hyper-complex judicial system that has developed over the centuries in this country, where its unique Constitution (created and incessantly tampered with by – you guessed it – lawyers) allows unfettered access to civil litigation, regardless of how insane the claim. Having run the gamut from suing over customers spilling hot McDonald’s coffee on their private parts, to cases of blindness in Octogenarians overdosing on Viagra, it now appears that the legal swarm has focused its sights on the purveyors of bare-bottomed beach babies and wet T-shirt contests. The defendants are a litany of the biggest traditional enemies of indoor tanning: Johnson & Johnson Inc., Schering-Plough Corp., Playtex Products Inc., Tanning Research Laboratories Inc., and Chattem Inc.
A consolidation of nine lawsuits were filed in the Los
Angeles Superior Court as a class action against the makers of the five
most popular sunscreen brands in the U.S.: Coppertone, Hawaiian Tropic,
Banana Boat, Neutrogena and BullFrog – claiming they have been misleading
consumers on how well their lotions block UV rays, thereby putting millions
of people at risk of skin cancer.
One lawyer suggests that misleading labeling gives parents a false sense
of safety when using sunscreens to protect their children from overexposure.
In virtually all cases, SPF ratings on lotion labels only relate to their
ability to block UVB, not UVA. Of course, the sunscreen manufacturers do
not agree with the assertions made in the lawsuits, and insist their products
are safe and effective under the guidelines set forth by the FDA. Ironically,
a vehement defense made public may prove to be disastrous for the anti-sun
medical community, particularly if the claimants’ attorneys call notable
photobiologists to give expert testimony.
One could imagine the look on the faces of the lawyers
who at first were forced to sit back and watch their faster, more resourceful
colleagues rake the big pharmaceuticals firms (and their insurance companies)
over the juristic coals when, after reading transcripts from the likes of
William Grant, Michael Holick and Ed Giovannucci, the “Eureka” moment hits.
Supported by recent papers from University of California, San Diego’s Cedric
Garland and University of Toronto’s Reinhold Veith, devilish details of
how sunscreens – predominantly blocking UVB – have hindered the production
of Vitamin D, thereby causing the premature cancer deaths of millions of
Americans over the past 30 years, could be used quite effectively in lawsuits
alleging professional negligence aimed at the American Academy of Dermatology
and the American Medical Association, just to name a few.
Some feel as if we may soon hear something like an announcement from the
flagman at a new “Indy 500 of Litigation” – “Lawyers, start your engines!”
Bob Wagner - A 23-year tanning industry
veteran, Bob has been IST’s International Correspondent for seven years.
His company, AEGIS, is a primary provider of FDA listing service for medical
device manufacturers, including spectral analysis for tanning equipment.
