Florida Statutes
Fla. Stat. § 499.009 (2025)
Misbranded cosmetics.
✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
499.009 Misbranded cosmetics.—A cosmetic is misbranded:
(1) If its labeling is false or misleading in any particular.
(2) If in package form, it does not bear a label containing:
(a) The name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor;
(b) An accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count; however, under this paragraph reasonable variations are permitted, and the department shall establish by rule exemptions for small packages; and
(c) A declaration of ingredients in descending order of predominance, or as otherwise required by federal law.
(3) If any word, statement, or other information required by or under authority of this part to appear on the label or labeling is not prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness as compared with other words, statements, designs, or devices in the labeling, and in such terms, as to render the word, statement, or other information likely to be read and understood by an individual under customary conditions of purchase and use.
(4) If its container is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.
(5) If it is a color additive, its packaging and labeling are not in conformity with the packaging and labeling requirements applicable to that color additive prescribed under the federal act. This subsection does not apply to packages of color additives that, with respect to their use for cosmetics, are marketed and intended for use only in or on hair dyes.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1
case (1 in the last 5 years), 2021–2021 · leading case: Jamie Potts v. Johnson & Johnson Consum. Inc. (D.N.J. 2021).
Jamie Potts v. Johnson & Johnson Consum. Inc. (D.N.J. 2021). “Health & Safety Code § 111730 ; Fla. Stat. Ann. § 499.009 . Plaintiffs also contend that JJCI failed to inform consumers of material information regarding the safety of the Products in violation of 21 C.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.