A federal judge in New Jersey has significantly narrowed a proposed multistate class action alleging that acne creams sold under the Clean & Clear and Neutrogena brands contained cancer-causing benzene without proper warnings.

In a 37-page decision issued Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Georgette Castner of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismissed large portions of the plaintiffs’ state and common law claims against Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. and Kenvue Inc., finding that the complaint failed to adequately connect alleged violations of federal manufacturing standards to the cited state laws.

However, the court allowed the consumers’ claims for monetary damages to proceed, concluding that they plausibly alleged they purchased defective products.

Allegations Over Benzene Contamination

The consolidated lawsuit includes nearly two dozen named plaintiffs from states including California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington. The majority are California residents.

The plaintiffs allege that acne treatments containing benzoyl peroxide — marketed under J&J’s Clean & Clear label and Kenvue’s Neutrogena brand — were defective because they either contained benzene at the time of sale or degraded over time to form benzene, a known carcinogen.

According to the complaint, testing conducted by independent laboratory Valisure LLC detected benzene levels exceeding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s recommended limit of 2 parts per million, in some instances reaching 20 times that threshold.

The lawsuit contends that the issue is not the result of isolated contamination, but rather stems from the inherent instability of benzoyl peroxide, which can break down chemically and generate benzene.

Judge Castner echoed that framing in rejecting the companies’ argument that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The companies had asserted that Valisure’s testing at most demonstrated contamination in specific batches. But the court found the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a product-wide design flaw, describing the case as one involving a problem “inherent to each product” containing benzoyl peroxide.

State Law Claims Fall Short

While the plaintiffs relied on consumer protection and product liability statutes from 11 states, Judge Castner ruled that their pleadings did not adequately bridge the gap between those laws and alleged violations of federal current good manufacturing practices, known as cGMPs.

The complaint argued that the companies violated federal cGMP standards and, by extension, state laws that purportedly require compliance with such standards. But the court said the allegations were too conclusory and lacked specific connections.

Citing similar benzene-related rulings from California federal courts, Judge Castner said the plaintiffs’ reasoning was “missing a step” and “circular.” She noted that some of the state statutes referenced in the complaint bar the sale of adulterated drugs but do not explicitly incorporate federal cGMP requirements.

As a result, the judge dismissed many of the state law claims but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend them.

The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief that would have required the companies to stop selling the products and conduct corrective advertising. Judge Castner reasoned that because the plaintiffs are now aware of the alleged defect, they are unlikely to purchase the products again and therefore cannot show a real and immediate threat of future harm.

The Case

The plaintiffs are represented by attorneys from Bursor & Fisher PA, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC and Wisner Baum. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. and Kenvue Inc. are represented by DLA Piper.

The case, In re: Benzoyl Peroxide Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, No. 3:24-cv-04109, is pending before Judge Castner in the District of New Jersey.