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
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
21
cases (
15 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case:
Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016).
Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016).
· 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.”
Skye Astiana v. the Hain Celestial Grp., 783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015).
“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., 959 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2020).
· 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., 818 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2016).
· 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., 115 F.4th 121 (2d Cir. 2024).
· 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 NY Slip Op 31881(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2025).
· 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 NY Slip Op 32015(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2025).
· 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 NY Slip Op 32773(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2025).
· 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…”
Jamie Potts v. Johnson & Johnson Consum. Inc. (D.N.J. 2021).
· 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…”
— 21 U.S.C. § 379s(a) — 15 cases
Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2016).
“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.”
Skye Astiana v. the Hain Celestial Grp., 783 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2015).
“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., 959 F.3d 31 (2d Cir. 2020).
“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., 818 F.3d 799 (9th Cir. 2016).
“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
— 21 U.S.C. § 379s(d) — 5 cases
Dumigan v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op 31881(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2025).
“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 NY Slip Op 32015(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2025).
“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 NY Slip Op 32773(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty. 2025).
“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 & Johnson Consum. Inc. (D.N.J. 2021).
“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.