Equaline Lidocaine Patches Misrepresentations Class Action

This class action takes issue with the Equaline lidocaine pain relief patches offered by SuperValu, Inc. on three counts. It claims the patches do not adhere long enough to provide the advertised relief, that they do not truly provide the “Maximum Strength” of lidocaine available, and that they make improper desensitizing claims.

Two classes have been defined for this action:

• The New York Class is all persons in New York who bought the product during the applicable statutes of limitations.
• The Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class is all persons in West Virginia, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Alaska, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, Iowa, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Utah who bought the product during the applicable statutes of limitations.

The first page of the complaint shows a photo of the product box, with an image of a man’s back with a patch in the lower area. The box also shows the words “for temporary relief of pain,” “up to 8 hours of relief,” “maximum strength,” and “desensitize aggravated nerves.”

Adherence
When the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewed over-the-counter skin patches in 2003, the complaint alleges, it “concluded that these transdermal drug delivery systems … systematically fail to adhere to the body.” The complaint also refers to a 2021 study in the Journal of Pain Research that similarly “found that approximately half of lidocaine patches promising adhesion for up to eight hours failed to completely adhere for the entire time.”

The complaint does not claim to have tested the Equaline patches but it speculates that, “upon information and belief, the Product uses the same defective adhesion technology…”

It also points to an item under “Directions” on the packaging that instructs users to “remove patch from the skin after at most 8 hours of application” which it claims gives consumers the idea that the product will stick to the skin for a full eight hours. But the complaint alleges that the patches will not adhere for that long.

Maximum strength
The product’s “maximum strength” claim is misleading for a number of reasons, the complaint alleges, including because “newly developed adhesive technology can deliver the bioequivalence of 5% lidocaine in patch form and maintain adhesion for at least eight hours under normal condition.”

The product’s “inability to adhere for anywhere close to eight hours[,]” the complaint alleges, means that it does not itself provide the “maximum strength” of lidocaine available.

Desensitizing claims
The product’s promise to “desensitize aggravated nerves,” the complaint alleges, is also misleading, the complaint alleges, because it does not do this completely.

Also, according to the complaint, “[t]he FDA determined that statements about desensitizing nerves and numbing pain were misleading in the context of these transdermal delivery systems” because, it says, “consumers … associate such statements with medical treatments requiring a prescription and FDA approval.”

Article Type: Lawsuit
Topic: Consumer
Tags: Deceptive Advertising, Deceptive Labels, Item Does Not Do What It Is Advertised to Do, Maximum Strength Claims