Judge Tosses Benzene Class Action Against L’Oréal Over CeraVe, La Roche-Posay Acne Products

A federal judge has dismissed a class action accusing L’Oréal USA of failing to warn consumers about benzene allegedly found in certain CeraVe and La Roche-Posay benzoyl peroxide acne products, ruling that federal law preempts the state-law claims.

U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres in Manhattan held that the claims were barred because over-the-counter drug labeling is governed by federal law, not separate state warning requirements.

The lawsuits grew out of concerns first raised publicly in 2024 about benzoyl peroxide, a common ingredient in acne treatments used by teenagers and adults.

Independent laboratory Valisure reported that benzoyl peroxide can break down and form benzene under certain conditions, particularly at elevated temperatures. Benzene is recognized as a human carcinogen. Valisure petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to investigate benzoyl peroxide products and sought recalls of products it said could generate high benzene levels.

Consumers later filed several proposed class actions against L’Oréal, which owns the CeraVe and La Roche-Posay brands.

The cases accused the company of selling benzoyl peroxide acne treatments without adequately disclosing that benzene could be present or form as the active ingredient degraded.

The lawsuits were eventually consolidated before Torres in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The litigation included claims from consumers in several states and challenged products sold under both brands.

L’Oréal moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the claims conflicted with the federal regulatory framework for nonprescription drugs.

Torres agreed.

At the center of the ruling is the legal doctrine of federal preemption.

Congress has established national requirements for over-the-counter medicines through the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Benzoyl peroxide acne treatments fall within that framework because they are sold as nonprescription drugs.

Federal law generally prevents states from imposing requirements that differ from or add to federal standards. The statute specifically includes drug warnings and other public information within that system.

The purpose is national consistency.

A company selling the same over-the-counter drug across the country is generally subject to one federal labeling framework instead of separate warning requirements in each state. Congress gave the FDA the central role in setting those standards.

The consumers in the L’Oréal litigation relied on state consumer-protection and related laws to argue that buyers should have received additional information about the alleged benzene risk.

Torres concluded that those claims would effectively impose warning or labeling obligations beyond the federal requirements governing the products. Federal law therefore preempted them.

The ruling resolves the lawsuit on a legal question tied to federal regulation. The underlying scientific concerns surrounding benzoyl peroxide have also received attention from the FDA.

After Valisure raised its concerns, the agency conducted its own testing of 95 benzoyl peroxide acne products. In March 2025, the FDA reported that more than 90% contained either no detectable benzene or extremely low levels. The agency said its findings showed substantially fewer products with elevated benzene than earlier third-party testing had suggested.

A limited number of products were recalled at the retail level.

Among them was one lot of La Roche-Posay Effaclar Duo Dual Action Acne Treatment, with an April 2025 expiration date. Several products made by other companies were also included in the recalls.

The FDA described the recalls as retail-level actions, which directed stores and online sellers to remove affected products.

The agency also said the cancer risk associated with the benzene levels it found was very low, even assuming daily use of the recalled products for decades.

The FDA continues to recognize benzene as a known human carcinogen and has warned drug manufacturers about risks involving contamination and chemical degradation. The agency has specifically acknowledged that benzoyl peroxide can break down into benzene under certain conditions, including extreme temperatures.

Manufacturers remain responsible for meeting federal quality and safety requirements.

The case also illustrates the separate roles of regulators and private lawsuits.

The FDA can test products, oversee manufacturing standards and work with companies on recalls. Consumers can also bring private lawsuits seeking damages or other relief, although federal preemption can limit claims that would create labeling or warning requirements beyond federal standards.

Federal law preserves some state product-liability claims and allows states to enforce requirements that are identical to federal law.

The viability of a particular claim can depend on the legal duty the plaintiff alleges and how closely that duty tracks federal requirements.

The L’Oréal decision reflects that distinction.

The consolidated cases sought to hold the company liable under state law for failing to provide additional warnings about benzene associated with its benzoyl peroxide products. Torres concluded that those claims imposed requirements beyond the federal regulatory scheme and dismissed them.

The ruling gives L’Oréal a significant victory in litigation that began more than two years ago.

It also highlights the growing overlap between independent product testing, federal regulation, and consumer litigation.

Independent laboratories can raise safety concerns that prompt further testing. The FDA can investigate those concerns and oversee recalls or regulatory action. Manufacturers may dispute findings, reformulate products or defend their labeling. Consumers may also seek relief through the courts.

Each process operates under a different legal standard.

For CeraVe and La Roche-Posay customers, the ruling means the consolidated warning-based claims against L’Oréal have been dismissed under federal preemption. The FDA’s earlier testing and recall actions remain separate from that legal conclusion.

The case ultimately turned on the division of authority between federal regulation and state consumer law, bringing the litigation to an end before a jury considered the underlying allegations.