CeraVe and La Roche-Posay Benzoyl Peroxide Benzene Lawsuit

Benzoyl peroxide (BPO) is one of the most common acne ingredients. On March 5, 2024, the independent lab Valisure filed a citizen petition with the FDA reporting that BPO can break down into benzene, a known human carcinogen, especially at elevated temperatures. According to the L'Oreal court's summary, Valisure analyzed 66 BPO products and reported some level of benzene in every one.

A wave of proposed class actions followed against makers and sellers of BPO products. The theory was the same across brands: buyers paid for acne treatments that contained, or would degrade into, benzene, without any warning on the label, so the products were adulterated and misbranded and worth less than the price paid.

CeraVe and La Roche-Posay (L'Oreal USA)

Suits against L'Oreal USA were consolidated in the Southern District of New York as In re L'Oreal Benzoyl Peroxide Products Litigation, No. 1:24-cv-02735, before Judge Analisa Torres. The plaintiffs lived in nine states and bought the products between 2020 and 2024. They sought a nationwide class plus subclasses in California, Alabama, Illinois, Louisiana, Missouri, Florida, Hawaii, New Jersey, and New York.

Other brands

• Differin (Galderma): Williams v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 1:24-cv-02222 (N.D. Ill.).
• up&up (Target): a proposed class action in federal court in Minnesota.
• Proactiv (Alchemee) and Clearasil (RB Health): several suits filed in 2024 in New York, California, Illinois, and New Jersey; many early cases were closed within months, and new ones were filed in 2026.

After the Valisure petition, the FDA ran its own tests. On March 11, 2025, the FDA reported that it tested 95 benzoyl peroxide acne products and that more than 90% had undetectable or extremely low benzene levels. Six products had elevated levels, and their makers agreed to retail-level recalls, meaning stores pulled specific lots but consumers were not told to discard what they owned.

Separately, the maker of Zapzyt Acne Treatment Gel agreed to recall that product after its own testing found elevated benzene. Notably, no CeraVe product was on the FDA's recall list. The agency said that even with daily use for decades, the cancer risk from the benzene levels it found in these products is very low, and it recommended throwing away products past their expiration date.

For how a recall differs from a lawsuit, see recall vs. class action.

Plaintiffs tried twice to centralize the litigation. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation denied an industry-wide MDL (No. 3120) on August 1, 2024, citing the many different companies and products involved, and then denied a L'Oreal-only MDL (No. 3141) on February 7, 2025. The L'Oreal cases stayed consolidated in New York instead.

L'Oreal moved to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint, arguing that the claims were preempted. Judge Torres agreed. Her September 15, 2026 order held that the state-law claims for deceptive practices, breach of implied warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment would impose labeling or warning requirements beyond federal law for over-the-counter drugs. She denied leave to amend because the scheduling order's deadline had passed and the plaintiffs did not show good cause. The clerk entered judgment for L'Oreal on September 16, 2026.

The order also noted that L'Oreal recalled a single lot of La Roche-Posay Effaclar Duo, and that no plaintiff alleged buying a product from that lot. The plaintiffs can still appeal to the Second Circuit; federal appeals generally must be filed within 30 days of judgment.

See what happens if a class action loses for what a dismissal means for people in a proposed class.

The Target ruling is a useful contrast. In a decision reported January 23, 2026, the federal court in Minnesota let most claims against Target proceed, finding at the pleading stage that damages, misbranding, and false advertising claims were not preempted. Courts do not all agree, which is why outcomes vary by brand and by court.

The Proactiv and Clearasil litigation shows how scattered these cases have been. Federal dockets show a series of 2024 filings that closed within months, including suits against Proactiv's maker Alchemee in the Northern District of California (filed March 28, 2024, closed August 30, 2024) and the Southern District of New York (filed April 10, 2024, closed June 21, 2024), and suits against Clearasil's maker RB Health in the Central District of California (filed March 7, 2024, closed September 19, 2024) and the Northern District of Illinois (filed April 5, 2024, closed August 13, 2024). New cases were filed in 2026, including Espinal v. Alchemee LLC in the Southern District of New York on April 10, 2026 and Robinson v. RB Health US LLC in the Central District of California on May 2, 2026. The public dockets we reviewed do not show why each earlier case closed, and a closed case does not mean the company paid anything.

The only resolved consumer case we could verify is Differin. Galderma agreed to a $990,000 settlement that pays a flat $9.00 per covered product, up to three products ($27) without proof of purchase and unlimited with receipts. It covered Differin Daily Deep Cleanser, Differin Acne Spot Treatment, and Differin Maximum Strength Acne Foaming Cleanser bought in the U.S. from January 1, 2020 to February 19, 2026. Payments were expected in mid-October 2026. Galderma denied wrongdoing.

That is typical for refund-based product cases. If the Target or Proactiv cases settle, expect amounts in a similar range. Personal injury claims, such as blood cancers, are a separate path, and the FDA's statement that the measured cancer risk is very low will be a major hurdle.

Acne treatments with benzoyl peroxide are over-the-counter drugs. Federal law, 21 U.S.C. section 379r, bars states from imposing labeling requirements for those drugs that differ from or add to federal rules. That is the preemption defense that won the L'Oreal case.

Plaintiffs try to get around it by arguing they are enforcing federal standards, such as current good manufacturing practice rules, through state consumer protection laws, rather than demanding a new warning. The Differin court in Illinois let a claim built on that theory proceed at the pleading stage in 2024. The Target court in 2026 rejected the manufacturing-practice theory as conclusory but let misbranding and false advertising claims go forward. The L'Oreal court found all of the claims preempted. Which view prevails on appeal will shape every remaining BPO case.

Consumer protection claims carry a statute of limitations of roughly two to six years depending on the state, and product injury claims are often two to three years from diagnosis.

The gap between the two sets of test results is at the heart of these cases. Valisure's 2024 petition, as summarized in the L'Oreal court's order, reported some benzene in every one of the 66 BPO products it analyzed, and the plaintiffs' theory is that storing or holding the products at high temperatures makes BPO break down into benzene. The FDA's own testing a year later found elevated benzene in only six of 95 products.

The FDA's explanation was pointed. It said it "has continued to raise concern that use of unvalidated testing methods by third-party laboratories can produce inaccurate results," and that such methods "may result in much higher reported levels of contaminants such as benzene than are actually present." The agency called on third-party labs that report results to consumers to use validated methods, and said it intends to publish its full data in peer-reviewed journals.

That dispute plays out in court in two ways. First, on standing: a plaintiff generally must plausibly allege that the product she bought contained benzene, not just that some products tested positive. The L'Oreal order noted that no plaintiff alleged buying the one recalled La Roche-Posay lot, and that Valisure tested only two of the three L'Oreal brands at issue. Second, on materiality: if the regulator says the risk is very low, a defendant can argue that buyers would not have paid less. Neither argument was necessary to the L'Oreal dismissal, which rested on preemption, but both will matter in the cases still pending against other brands.

For consumers, the practical takeaway from both sides is the same: heat matters. Keep BPO products at room temperature, check expiration dates, and discard expired tubes.

1. Check your lot number. If you have La Roche-Posay Effaclar Duo lot MYX46W or any expired BPO product, throw it out as the FDA recommends.
2. Store acne products at room temperature, away from hot cars and steamy showers, since heat drives BPO breakdown.
3. Keep receipts for BPO products in case a pending case against another brand settles.
4. If you have a blood cancer diagnosis, keep records of your product use and talk to your oncologist; do not rely on advertisements.

If you want to know whether you have an individual claim or fit a still-pending case, independent attorneys who handle product cases can review your facts. A free case review takes about two minutes. Related: skincare false advertising lawsuits and deodorant false advertising lawsuits.