U.S. Code » Title 21 » Chapter CHAPTER 9— FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER VII— GENERAL AUTHORITY › Part Part F— National Uniformity for Nonprescription Drugs and Preemption for Labeling or Packaging of Cosmetics

21 U.S.C. § 379s

Preemption for labeling or packaging of cosmetics

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 21 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In general

Except as provided in subsection (b), (d), or (e), no State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect any requirement for labeling or packaging of a cosmetic that is different from or in addition to, or that is otherwise not identical with, a requirement specifically applicable to a particular cosmetic or class of cosmetics under this chapter, the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970 (15 U.S.C. 1471 et seq.), or the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.).

(b) ExemptionUpon application of a State or political subdivision thereof, the Secretary may by regulation, after notice and opportunity for written and oral presentation of views, exempt from subsection (a), under such conditions as may be prescribed in such regulation, a State or political subdivision requirement for labeling or packaging that—(1) protects an important public interest that would otherwise be unprotected;(2) would not cause a cosmetic to be in violation of any applicable requirement or prohibition under Federal law; and(3) would not unduly burden interstate commerce.(c) Scope

For purposes of subsection (a), a reference to a State requirement that relates to the packaging or labeling of a cosmetic means any specific requirement relating to the same aspect of such cosmetic as a requirement specifically applicable to that particular cosmetic or class of cosmetics under this chapter for packaging or labeling, including any State requirement relating to public information or any other form of public communication.

(d) No effect on product liability law

Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or otherwise affect any action or the liability of any person under the product liability law of any State.

(e) State initiative

This section shall not apply to a State requirement adopted by a State public initiative or referendum enacted prior to September 1, 1997.

(June 25, 1938, ch. 675, § 752, as added Pub. L. 105–115, title IV, § 412(d), Nov. 21, 1997, 111 Stat. 2376.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 91–601, Dec. 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 1670, which is classified principally to chapter 39A (§ 1471 et seq.) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1471 of Title 15 and Tables.

The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is Pub. L. 89–755, Nov. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 1296, which is classified generally to chapter 39 (§ 1451 et seq.) of Title 15, Commerce and Trade. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 1451 of Title 15 and Tables.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section effective 90 days after Nov. 21, 1997, except as otherwise provided, see section 501 of Pub. L. 105–115, set out as an Effective Date of 1997 Amendment note under section 321 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (15 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case: Ebner v. Fresh, Inc.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ebner v. Fresh, Inc. (2016) ca9 · cites it 2× “Because the Sherman Law does not amount to something “different from or in addition to” what federal law already requires, under 21 U.S.C. § 379s, preemption does not bar Plaintiffs claim.”
Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (2014) nysd · cites it 4× “Moreover, the Court notes that, according to the congressional record explaining the text of 21 U.S.C. § 379s, “advertising issues relating to .”
Skye Astiana v. the Hain Celestial Group (2015) ca9 “21 U.S.C. § 379s(a). Hain’s argument that this language expressly preempts any state law claim that a cosmetic label is false or misleading does not square with Supreme Court precedent.”
Critcher v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2020) ca2 · cites it 2× “CONCLUSION To summarize, we hold that the FDCA’s broad preemption clause, 21 U.S.C. § 379s, bars Plaintiffs from seeking to impose additional or different labeling requirements through their state-law claims, especially when Congress and the FDA already have provided for…”
Angela Ebner v. Fresh, Inc. (2016) ca9 · cites it 2× “Because the Sherman Law does not amount to something “different from or in addition to” what federal *806 law already requires,, under 21 U.S.C. § 379s, preemption does not bar Plaintiffs claim.”
Jackson-Mau v. Walgreen Co. (2024) ca2 · cites it 2× “The issue was whether those state law claims were foreclosed by the FDCA’s express preemption provision for cosmetics products under 21 U.S.C. § 379s(a). 12 Id. at 34. We held that the FDCA foreclosed the state law claims because, to avoid liability under the consumers’…”
Dumigan v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2025) nysupctnewyork · cites it 5× “The specific language which Luster argues preempts many of Plaintiff's causes of action is found in 21 U.S.C. § 379s(a). 159690/2024 DUMIGAN, PAULETE vs.”
Barber v. Loreal USA, Inc. (2025) nysupctnewyork · cites it 5× “The specific language which Luster argues preempts many of Plaintiffs causes of action is found in 21 U.S.C. § 379s(a). That provision provides: "Except as provided in subsection (b ), (d), or ( e ), no State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in…”
Deliotte v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2025) nysupctnewyork · cites it 5× “The specific language which Beauty argues preempts many of Plaintiffs causes of action is found in 21 U.S.C. § 379s(a). That provision provides: "Except as provided in subsection (b), (d), or (e), no State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect…”
In RE: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation (2023) ilnd · cites it 3× “See 21 U.S.C. § 379s(d) (“Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or otherwise affect any action or the liability of any person under the product liability law of any State.”
Jamie Potts v. Johnson and Johnson Consumer Inc. (2021) njd · cites it 3× “The FDCA’s preemption specific statute is contained in 21 U.S.C. § 379s, et seq. JJCI points to § 379s(a), which prohibits states and local government from “establish[ing] or continu[ing] in effect any requirement for labeling or packaging of a cosmetic that is different from or…”
Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. v. Lynn Fitch, Attorney General of the State of Mississ (2021) miss · cites it 3× “21 U.S.C. § 379s(a) (emphasis added). ¶22.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
— 21 U.S.C. § 379s(a) — 15 cases
Ebner v. Fresh, Inc. (2016) ca9 “Because the Sherman Law does not amount to something “different from or in addition to” what federal law already requires, under 21 U.S.C. § 379s, preemption does not bar Plaintiffs claim.”
Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (2014) nysd “Moreover, the Court notes that, according to the congressional record explaining the text of 21 U.S.C. § 379s, “advertising issues relating to .”
Skye Astiana v. the Hain Celestial Group (2015) ca9 “21 U.S.C. § 379s(a). Hain’s argument that this language expressly preempts any state law claim that a cosmetic label is false or misleading does not square with Supreme Court precedent.”
Critcher v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2020) ca2 “CONCLUSION To summarize, we hold that the FDCA’s broad preemption clause, 21 U.S.C. § 379s, bars Plaintiffs from seeking to impose additional or different labeling requirements through their state-law claims, especially when Congress and the FDA already have provided for…”
Angela Ebner v. Fresh, Inc. (2016) ca9 “Because the Sherman Law does not amount to something “different from or in addition to” what federal *806 law already requires,, under 21 U.S.C. § 379s, preemption does not bar Plaintiffs claim.”
— 21 U.S.C. § 379s(c) — 1 case
Goldemberg v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. (2014) nysd “Moreover, the Court notes that, according to the congressional record explaining the text of 21 U.S.C. § 379s, “advertising issues relating to .”
— 21 U.S.C. § 379s(d) — 5 cases
In RE: Hair Relaxer Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation (2023) ilnd “See 21 U.S.C. § 379s(d) (“Nothing in this section shall be construed to modify or otherwise affect any action or the liability of any person under the product liability law of any State.”
Dumigan v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2025) nysupctnewyork “The specific language which Luster argues preempts many of Plaintiff's causes of action is found in 21 U.S.C. § 379s(a). 159690/2024 DUMIGAN, PAULETE vs.”
Barber v. Loreal USA, Inc. (2025) nysupctnewyork “The specific language which Luster argues preempts many of Plaintiffs causes of action is found in 21 U.S.C. § 379s(a). That provision provides: "Except as provided in subsection (b ), (d), or ( e ), no State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in…”
Deliotte v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. (2025) nysupctnewyork “The specific language which Beauty argues preempts many of Plaintiffs causes of action is found in 21 U.S.C. § 379s(a). That provision provides: "Except as provided in subsection (b), (d), or (e), no State or political subdivision of a State may establish or continue in effect…”
Jamie Potts v. Johnson and Johnson Consumer Inc. (2021) njd “The FDCA’s preemption specific statute is contained in 21 U.S.C. § 379s, et seq. JJCI points to § 379s(a), which prohibits states and local government from “establish[ing] or continu[ing] in effect any requirement for labeling or packaging of a cosmetic that is different from or…”
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.