OKLAHOMA CITY – Three federal class-action lawsuits filed by residents of five states accuse Purell of false and misleading advertising and deceptive business practices in the marketing of its popular hand sanitizer.
The alleged boasts include, “among others,” that Purell’s products “kill more than 99.99% of most common germs that may cause illness in a health- care setting, including MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) and VRE (vancomycin-resistant enterococci).”
Purell also claims that its hand sanitizer products “may be effective against viruses such as the Ebola virus, norovirus, and influenza”; that its products “[c]an reduce student absenteeism by up to 51%”; and that teachers “who follow this program also experience a reduction of absenteeism.”
However, hand washing is “the primary method to prevent the spread of influenza (aside from vaccination),” contends Cliff Jurkiewicz, one of the plaintiffs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend using hand sanitizer only if soap and water are not available, Jurkiewicz notes. He also cites a 2018 study which “suggested that certain bacteria may develop tolerance to alcohol-based sanitizers over time.”
PURELL IS ‘EVERYWHERE,’ PLAINTIFF ASSERTS
Jurkiewicz lives in Pennsylvania but filed his case on Feb. 9. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Akron, Ohio, is the principal place of business of Gojo Industries, parent company of Purell.
Jurkiewicz said that before and while using Purell products he “researched and
read advertisements regarding the products’ ability to kill germs.” Because of the products’ claims, Jurkiewicz “believed that he would be protected against viruses and bacteria...”
If he had known that “the products were not effective at preventing disease or illness,” Jurkiewicz declares, he would not have bought the Purell products “or would have paid substantially less for them.”
Purell is “everywhere,” Jurkiewicz asserts. “It is used in people’s homes, shopping areas, airports, schools, and carried around ... in school backpacks, purses, and briefcases.” As late as Feb. 8, 2020, the company’s website claimed Purell “defines the hand sanitizer category and is the brand most preferred by doctors, professionals and consumers everywhere.”
“The recent outbreak of the coronavirus has greatly increased demand” for Purell products, four other plaintiffs allege in their lawsuit that also was filed in Ohio’s Northern District federal court.
PURELL CLAIMED IT COULD ‘PREVENT ILLNESS’
Purell “claimed via Internet advertising ... and social media accounts” that its products “could prevent illness” such as the common cold and influenza, Edward Miller, Jerome McDaniel, Matthew Downing, and Jasmine Wilder contend in their class-action lawsuit.
“[T]here is no sound scientific evidence to support the statistics or other claims” of Purell, Miller, McDaniel, Downing, and Wilder assert in their petition filed March 13 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Manal Aleisa, who lives in Los Angeles, Calif., filed suit on Jan. 31 this year, challenging “the deceptive advertising and business practices” and “misrepresentations” of Gojo Industries d/b/a Purell. That petition was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
All of the plaintiffs cite a “warning letter” dated Jan 17, 2020, that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) sent to Purell.
The federal agency described the company’s hand sanitizer as “nothing more than topical antiseptic not adequately proven to be safe and effective for preventing disease or infection from pathogens” such as Ebola, MRSA, VRE, norovirus, flu, and Candida auris (a species of fungus that grows as yeast which can enter the bloodstream and is often multidrug-resistant), Jurkiewicz and Aleisa write in their complaints.
PLAINTIFFS ALLEGE MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS
Purell’s conduct “violated the consumer protection and warranty laws of various states and resulted in” the company’s “unjust enrichment,” the four plaintiffs allege in their lawsuit. Miller lives in California, McDaniel in Michigan, Downing in Massachusetts, and Wilder in Oregon.
In their petitions the plaintiffs allege:
• violation of Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law;
• violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law;
• violation of California’s False Advertising Law;
• unjust enrichment by Purell/Gojo;
• negligent and intentional misrepresentation;
• violation of Michigan’s Consumer Protection Act;
• violation of Oregon’s Unlawful Trade Practices Law;
• violation of Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act.
DOUBLE OR TRIPLE DAMAGES SOUGHT
Miller, McDaniel, Downing, and Wilder seek “actual damages and/or restitution “and/or awarding to” the four plaintiffs, plus the nationwide class affected by Purell’s alleged behavior, “the amounts by which” Purell was “unjustly enriched as a result of its wrongful conduct.” They also want the Ohio federal court to award double or treble damages, require Purell to pay the attorneys’ fees and expenses, and to award “such other and further relief which the Court finds just and proper.”
Jurkiewicz asks the Ohio court to declare that Purell’s conduct violated the law; to award compensatory, exemplary, punitive and statutory damages to him and to the affected class of consumers.
Aleisa requests a judgment in the California court against Purell for punitive damages, restitution, plus general and compensatory damages “in an amount to be determined at trial.