Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
Walgreen Co.’s argument to sever claims in the class action lawsuit accusing the drugstore of selling diluted, ineffective, homeopathic ear drops was rejected by a California judge last week.
In December 2013, lead plaintiffs Danielle Demison and Teri Spano filed a class action lawsuit accusing Walgreens of selling ear products, including Ear Pain Relief and Ear Ache Drops, that are ineffective because they do not contain enough of the active ingredients to work.
In their Walgreen class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs claim that homeopathic ear medicines were traditionally put together for individuals based on their particular symptoms. However, Walgreens began mass marketing the products with only trace amounts of the active ingredients, they allege. The plaintiffs accuse Walgreens of capitalizing on the public’s misunderstanding of homeopathic medicines, which has turned the products into a multimillion-dollar industry, and that Walgreens also knew that only trace, ineffective amounts of the active ingredients are present in the products.
Walgreens filed a motion asking the court to sever the class action lawsuit’s claims regarding the two products the plaintiffs allege are ineffective, the Ear Pain Relief and Ear Ache Drops. U.S. District Court Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz disagreed with Walgreens stating “[t]he court finds a high degree of similarity in the factual background of these claims and concludes that each claim arises from the same series of transactions or occurrences.”
He added: “While the specific details of the individual purchases of the products are unique to each transaction,” explained the judge further in his order, “the alleged facts follow the same pattern: the consumers read the labels and claims on the products’ packages, and relied upon the claims to remedy ear pain.”
Moskowitz also pointed out that rejection of the pharmacy giant’s argument that the claims should be severed because the products were manufactured by different companies is appropriate because Walgreens “placed its brand on both products and marketed and sold both products for the same medical purpose.” Additionally, “the inclusion of different ingredients in each product is equally unavailing,” ruled the judge, pointing out, “[i]t is sufficient that both products were advertised as providing relief for ear pain and that both products’ labeling was allegedly deceptive as a result of ingredient dilution. Moreover, two of the listed active ingredients, chamomilla and sulphur, are common to both products.”
The lead plaintiffs, Danielle Demison and Teri Spano, are represented by Ronald A. Marron and Skye Resendes of Law Offices of Ronald A. Marron, and Jeffrey M. Salas of Salas Wang LLC.
The Walgreens Ineffective Homeopathic Ear Drop Class Action Lawsuit is Danielle Demison et al. v. Walgreen Co. Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00306, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
UPDATE: A judge signed off on the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the Walgreens homeopathic ear drop class action lawsuit on Jan. 6, 2015. However, the judge dismissed the class action lawsuit without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of other plaintiffs bringing similar claims in the future.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
One thought on Judge Rejects Walgreens’ Argument in Ear Drops Lawsuit
UPDATE: A judge signed off on the parties’ joint motion to dismiss the Walgreens homeopathic ear drop class action lawsuit on Jan. 6, 2015. However, the judge dismissed the class action lawsuit without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of other plaintiffs bringing similar claims in the future.