“Not Being Heard Is No Reason For Silence”  – Victor Hugo

Bradley/Grombacher gives a voice to those injured by big insurance, pharmaceutical and Fortune 500 companies and works tirelessly to vindicate the rights of our clients who have been wronged.

Rite Aid Hit With Class Action Over Fake Aloe Vera Gel

Ride Aid was hit with a class action lawsuit alleging that its “Renewal After Sun Gel” is marketed as containing Aloe Vera, but independent tests show that the product contains none of the plant extract.

Lead plaintiff Tina Kalajian alleges in her Rite Aid false advertising lawsuit that the Renewal After Sun Gel label says that it is made of “Aloe” and has a picture of a green leafy plant, and the ingredient label says it contains “Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Juice Powder.” Kalakian alleges this implies to consumers that Rite Aid Renewal After Sun Gel contains Aloe Vera; however, independent lab tests reveal that no actual Aloe Vera exists in the product at all.

The plaintiff claims she decided to purchase Rite Aid Renewal After Sun Gel because she thought that the products contained Aloe Vera. The plaintiff “wanted Aloe Vera for its commonly understood recuperative skin-healing and sunburn-relief qualities,” says the Rite Aid false advertising lawsuit.

“Aloe Vera is used in many products marketed for recuperative, burn and/or sunburn relief. It is also a popular folk remedy, believed by some to treat everything from hypertension to the common cold when ingested,” states the class action lawsuit.

The International Aloe Science Council says that the global market for Aloe Vera products is estimated at $13 billion, according to the class action complaint. Ride Aid is attempting to cash in on perceived health benefits of Aloe Vera without actually including any of the ingredient in its products, says the Rite Aid false advertising lawsuit.

“The difference between the Product promised and the Product sold is significant,” states the Rite Aid false advertising lawsuit. “The lack of Aloe Vera in the Product diminishes its value to zero. Consumers, including Plaintiff and Class Members, would not have purchased the Product had they known the Product contains no detectable amount of aloe”

The plaintiff says that Rite Aid knowingly used a marketing strategy that included leafy greens and the words “contains Aloe” on the product in order to deceive consumers. Only a small percentage of products sold to “soothe” burnt or irritated skin claim they contain Aloe, says the plaintiff, and consumers who wanted Aloe would not have purchased Rite Aid Review After Sun Gel if they had known it did not contain Aloe.

“The name ‘After Sun Gel,’ the net weight, the terms, ‘with Aloe,’ ‘No Added Color’ and ‘Soothes & Cools’ are the representations on the front of the Product,” alleges the Rite Aid false advertising class action lawsuit. “Together with a prominently stylized illustration of the multiple green leaves of an aloe plant that further conveys the importance of aloe as a Product ingredient, these claims comprise the entire front panel.”

The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California consumers who were deceived by Rite Aid’s alleged false advertising and purchased its Renewal After Sun Gel over the past four years. The plaintiff claims that Rite Aid’s false advertising violates California’s advertising, consumer protection, and commercial laws.

The plaintiff is seeking damages as well as a court order stopping Ride Aid from falsely advertising its Renewal After Sun Gel.

The Rite Aid False Advertising Lawsuit is Tina Kalajin v. Rite Aid Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-06777-ODW-AGR in the United States District Court Central District of California.

Did you purchase a product that contained a false or misleading label? You may have a legal claim. Fill out the form on this page now for a FREE case evaluation. 

Categories

Request a Free Consultation

If you feel that your rights have been violated, call our experienced attorneys for a free evaluation.

Our Notable Victories

  • Galvan v. Doe $6,750,000
  • Valenzuela v. Doe $6,200,000
  • Gaisano v. Doe Tire Company $1,675,000
  • Smuckler v. City of South Pasadena $4,000,000
  • Gutierrez v. Dole $2,455,000
  • Gould v. Casares $2,450,000
  • Gonzalez v. Brown $2,000,000
  • Silberberg v. Titus $1,800,000
  • Doe Plaintiffs v. Doe Tire Company $1,675,000
  • Buffington v. HDMC $1,400,000
/

Reasons Why Clients Continue to Choose Us

  • No upfront payments required. We get paid when you do!
  • Excellent communication & access to our attorneys.
  • Proven track record of success. Just take a look at our cases!
  • Hablamos Español! We can assist you in both English and Spanish.

Highly Esteemed & Accomplished

  • We highly recommend!

    “Marcus guided us through the entire process with professionalism & compassion. His knowledge, thoroughness, and experience ensured the best possible outcome for our case and we highly recommend him.”

    - Kylie & Daniel C.
  • Marcus Bradley is a wonderful lawyer.

    “This settlement made it possible for my sister to have a much better life than I thought would be possible.”

    - Ellen T.
/

Your Rights Deserve Justice

Schedule a Free Consultation
  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.