Cosmetics1.us

Neutrogena Corp

Neutrogena Sunscreens | Truth In Advertising

Neutrogena Sunscreens | Truth In Advertising


Truth In Advertising

March 2016: The parties agreed to dismiss this action and it was dismissed . The reasons for the dismissal have not been disclosed. June 2014: A class-acti

Benefactor’s gift ‘was transformative’ for Folk Art Museum

Benefactor’s gift ‘was transformative’ for Folk Art Museum


The Santa Fe New Mexican

Lloyd Cotsen, the man whose 1994 gift of more than 3,000 objects to the museum led to the building of its Neutrogena Wing, died at the age of 88.

Neutrogena

Neutrogena


Yahoo Local

Find Neutrogena in Los Angeles with Address, Phone number from Yahoo US Local. Includes Neutrogena Reviews, maps & directions to Neutrogena in Los Angeles and more from Yahoo US Local

More outlet cases: traditional price claims survive; value claims are harder

by noreply@blogger.com (Rebecca Tushnet) @ Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log

Two cases:

Dennis v. Ralph Lauren Corp., 2017 WL 3732103, No. 16cv1056 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2017)

Plaintiff stated a consumer protection claim by alleging that Polo Ralph Lauren’s clothing sold at factory stores uses a price tag which represents two prices to the consumer, the “Value Was” price, and the “Our Price” price,” conveying to the consumer that the clothing previously sold at the “Value Was” price, when in fact that was never the prevailing market price, at the factory store or otherwise.  Comment: I don’t see the sense in trying to use “Value” to evade falsity about prices; among other things, if you distinguish “Value” from market price, “Value Was” suggests that the “value” has now diminished.

Marino v. Coach, Inc., 2017 WL 3731954, No. 16-CV-1122 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2017)

Plaintiffs alleged that Coach misled consumers into believing that products sold at Coach outlet and factory stores were deeply discounted, when, in fact, the goods are manufactured exclusively for Coach Factory stores and are not being sold at a discounted price at all. They brought claims for fraud, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of at least twenty state consumer protection statutes.

Coach allegedly manufactures certain goods exclusively for sale in Coach Factory stores, identified by a style number beginning with “F,” whereas mainline or retail products have five-digit style numbers with no letters. Coach Factory goods are marketed with an “MFSRP” or “Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price,” which is allegedly “illusory” because Coach Factory goods are never actually sold for the MFSRP.  Coach apparently agreed that the MFSRPs were intended to give an impression of quality. According Coach’s own declaration, disclaimers posted in Coach Factory stores state that the MFSRPs are “an indication of value based on the quality of the material used, our commitment to craftsmanship and the high standards demanded by Coach.”  (Uh-hunh.  I thought modern economics indicated that price reflects value in an efficient marketplace.) Plaintiffs allegedly purchased accessories – wristlets, sunglasses, and a handbag – and paid prices ranging between 40% and 70% less than the purported MFSRPs.  These labels allegedly created a false impression of the existence of a discount, as well as a false impression of quality, enhanced by comparison to Coach retail products and prices given that at least some of Coach’s factory-only products are designed to appear similar to Coach goods sold in retail stores. For example, the CAC includes a side-by-side comparison of the Coach Factory “Phoebe” handbag is visually similar to the “Edie” bag sold in Coach retail stores. The Phoebe bag is sold in Coach Factory stores with a hangtag showing an MFSRP of $395, while the Edie bag is sold in retail stores for $325. Consumers viewing the two similar bags allegedly base their expectations for the quality of the Phoebe bag on its similarity to the Edie, but the Phoebe bag is actually of lesser quality, made from “fabric remnants” rather than a larger, more desirable, single piece of fabric.

Coach challenged plaintiffs’ standing under Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, __ U.S. __, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (2016), arguing that the plaintiffs alleged, at best, bare procedural violations that didn’t amount to cognizable injury under Article III. Nope. Plaintiffs alleged that they wouldn’t have bought the products without the allegedly false advertising; that’s a concrete injury in fact.  However, they didn’t have standing to seek injunctive relief.  Coach also argued that plaintiffs lacked standing to bring claims on behalf of a multi-state subclass because they didn’t personally possess claims under the consumer protection laws of any other state. That depended on what law applies to the absent class members’ claims and whether the injury recognized by those laws was sufficiently similar to plaintiffs’ injury that class treatment is appropriate, so the court deferred consideration of this until certification.

The court analyzed the consumer protection claims under Rule 9(b); plaintiffs didn’t disagree that Rule 9(b) applied.  The court found that the “how” and “why” of the fraud was in part inadequately alleged. The straightforward theory of deception was that MFSRPs were deceptive because consumers understand them to represent former prices, but they don’t; that was adequately pleaded.  The “more nuanced” theory of deception was that Coach designs outlet-only goods that appear similar to retail products and tags the outlet-only products with MFSRPs that are similar to the prices of the retail goods, causing consumers to believe they are buying products of similar quality to the similar retail products.  The court found that the complaint didn’t adequately allege the “how” or “why” of this product-confusion theory. Plaintiffs didn’t allege that they bought the Phoebe bag, or identify any Coach mainline products – or family of products – to which plaintiffs believed the outlet goods that they purchased were similar. To proceed on this theory, plaintiffs would have to identify the retail goods that are deceptively similar to the outlet goods that the Plaintiffs actually purchased.

Under New York’s consumer protection law, it isn’t enough to allege that one wouldn’t have bought an item but for the appearance of a discount; that’s not injury under New York law, or Massachusetts law.  It is sufficient injury under California law.  Assuming that New Hampshire followed the East Coast model, it was still possible that the New Hampshire plaintiff could amend her complaint to allege injury distinguishable from such “ephemeral” injury, if the MFSRP’s caused her to believe that she was purchasing a product of higher quality than she received.  It wasn’t enough if she merely believed she was getting a bargain.

The New Hampshire plaintiff also plausibly alleged that the MFSRPs were misleading. Coach argued that disclaimers in its stores explain that the MFSRPs are intended to be indicators of “value.” “Whether, in the face of such disclaimers, a reasonable consumer could nonetheless believe that the MFSRPs are former prices is an issue of fact to be resolved at a later stage of this litigation, as is the significance of Coach’s disclaimers.” Further, unlike “compare at” advertising, MFSRPs – “Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Prices” – allude directly to a price for the item, “which makes it more plausible that a reasonable consumer could believe that the MFSRP on the hangtag represents a former price.”

The express warranty claim failed, because at best  the MFSRPs were “implicit” warranties of a former price. They also weren’t warranties of product quality, because an inference that the Coach Factory products are of better quality than they actually are was “too vague and general to be actionable as an express warranty of anything related to the actual goods.”



Neutrogena Light Facial Night Cream, 2.25 Oz. - Walmart.com

Neutrogena Light Facial Night Cream, 2.25 Oz. - Walmart.com


Walmart.com

Free 2-day shipping on qualified orders over $35. Buy Neutrogena Light Facial Night Cream, 2.25 Oz. at Walmart.com

J&J to buy Neutrogena Corp.Johnson & Johnson, the...

J&J to buy Neutrogena Corp.Johnson & Johnson, the...


tribunedigital-baltimoresun

J&J to buy Neutrogena Corp.Johnson & Johnson, the diversified health care and consumer products company, said yesterday that it will buy the skin care company Neutrogena Corp. for more than $924...

Plaintiff can't win false advertising claim because there's evidence on both sides

by noreply@blogger.com (Rebecca Tushnet) @ Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log

Korolshteyn v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 15-cv-709, 2017 WL 3622226 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2017)

Ugh. Costco’s TruNature Gingko labels represent that the product “supports alertness & memory,” that “Gingko biloba can help with mental clarity and memory,” and that “[i]t also helps maintain healthy blood flow to the brain to assist mental clarity and memory, especially occasional mild memory problems associated with aging.” Plaintiff alleged that these were false or misleading under the UCL and CLRA.  Relying on In re GNC Corp., 789 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 2015), the court here found that this was an impermissible lack-of-substantiation claim, and that therefore a private plaintiff can never prove falsity “when a defendant offers scientific evidence and admissible expert testimony supporting an advertising claim about the efficacy of the product in question.”  To prove falsity, all reasonable experts in the field must agree that the representations are false.  The court found that California would follow GNC, because no state court cases have rejected it, but I doubt that given the state’s tradition of consumer protection and its occasional rejection of the Lanham Act analogy ostensibly underneath GNC (occasional because there’s so much California consumer protection law that the analogy is only rarely made).

Mullins v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 178 F.Supp. 3d 867 (N.D. Cal. 2016), held that a plaintiff could prove claims “literally false if a reasonable jury concludes that all reasonable scientists agree,” or that the claims are “misleading by showing that the vast weight of the competent evidence establishes that those health claims are false.” This is an attempt to draw off some of GNC’s poison, but as we will see it doesn’t work well.  The main reasons that this formulation isn’t a good one are that (1) the Lanham Act’s false/misleading distinction, from which GNC’s consumer protection law reasoning is supposedly drawn, doesn’t have anything to do with “all reasonable scientists” v. “vast weight of the competent evidence,” but rather with issues of consumer perception, and (2) the way scientific evidence works doesn’t generally allow for such a distinction; the most you can say about any given study is that, at various levels of quality, it provides support for an affirmative claim or it doesn’t provide support for that claim.  Mullins said that, for misleadingness, a plaintiff “can concede the existence of scientific studies substantiating a representation, but argue that those studies are poorly designed, incredible, or represent the view of a minority of scientists.” But now we are firmly detached from the idea of consumer perception, and the existence of poorly designed or “incredible” studies shouldn’t be allowed to avoid a finding literal falsity anyway!

It is one thing to say that “[i]nconclusive findings and unsettled science are insufficient to meet Plaintiffs’ burden of raising a question of fact on the issue of falsity,” and quite another to say, as if it were a mere restatement, that “mixed evidence demonstrates at most that the science on [the product’s] effectiveness is inconclusive.”  This is the fallacy of the excluded middle: in the former situation, even crediting all the evidence, the plaintiff couldn’t meet its burden of proof at trial on the merits; in the latter, it might be the case that, depending on which evidence you credited, the plaintiff could meet its burden.  This distinction may seem fine, but it makes a big difference because it is about whether courts will throw up their hands when truth is in question—the very essence of the factfinding project. And that’s not hyperbole on my part, that’s from the courts following GNC: “where there are studies demonstrating both the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of the Products, a reasonable jury could not find that the advertising claims are false.”

So, the court here reasoned, “when a defendant presents scientific studies supporting its advertising claim, a plaintiff must do more than present its own studies that do not support the advertising claim, thereby demonstrating that evidence is equivocal.” Mullins, with which the court here disagreed, held that the plaintiff could offer “principled, supported critiques” of the defendant’s studies, allowing the jury to disregard them or to find the plaintiff’s studies more persuasive and thus find the advertising claims misleading.

The court here also found that the plaintiff was only alleging falsity, not misleadingness, because it thought misleadingness had nothing to do with consumer perception.  Though she used the words “false and misleading,” she was really arguing that the claims were misleading because they were false.  Again, the court didn’t seem to understand misleadingness as something that happened on the consumer end.  In fact, consumers might—and, we know from other studies, in fact do—think that a claim on the label of a supplement has substantial scientific weight behind it, including FDA approval; they are thus misled, quite possibly materially, about the quality of the claim.

“Whether the Label Claims are true or false is a binary choice—they are true, or they are false. When the scientific evidence is equivocal, it is impossible to prove that an advertised claim is either literally true or literally false.”  Comment: This is (ironically?) at best misleading.  Not all cases in which there are factual disputes—even cases where there is enough on both sides to get past summary judgment—are “equivocal.”  Many of them are merely contested, something that courts see easily enough in the ordinary partisan context.  That doesn’t deprive the factfinder of the ability to determine which is the truth, and if it can’t do so, then the burden of proof does the necessary work.  GNC, as I feared, has led to a series of false equivalences, with slippages in meaning each time—from judge-made Lanham Act doctrine to consumer protection law, from false to misleading, from “equivocal” to “equipoise.”

“Essentially, Plaintiff is arguing that the Label Claims could be misleading because a jury could find that Defendants have not proven them to be literally true, which is little more than a ‘lack of substantiation’ claim.” Comment: No, the jury could find that the statement “this product aids memory” is false, because the plaintiffs’ evidence about the studies makes its falsity more likely than not.  If a good study would likely have shown an effect, and a good study exists that didn’t show this effect, that tends to make it more likely that there is no effect—indeed, that’s why you try to disprove a hypothesis.  “Literally false” and “lie” are not the same thing (even if “literally false” was a part of consumer protection law).

“In sum, when a plaintiff presents admissible expert testimony that scientific studies do not support an advertised claim, and a defendant presents admissible expert testimony that scientific studies support the advertised claim, the evidence is equivocal and all reasonable scientists do not agree. No jury conclusion would change either of these facts.” Comment: Note how misleadingness, in the ordinary sense of causing consumers to have false beliefs regardless of literal truth, has become conceptually impossible as well.  Under the court’s reasoning, attempting to prove misleadingness would also cause the impermissible “substantiation” problem—because the fact that a statement deceived consumers about the level of proof would also not change the fact that there was scientific evidence on both sides.

Missing from the court’s reasoning about substantiation is the role of the burden of proof.  A substantiation requirement means that the defendant has the burden of showing that its claim is true.  A falsity or misleadingness requirement means that the plaintiff has the opposite burden; scientific studies showing no effect are one way of meeting that burden.  In fact, they are the best way to do so, though whether they are sufficient in any given case may well be a matter for the jury. 

I think the courts who follow GNC have been confused about the concept of “scientific study” and its intersection with a very different mode of factfinding, the judicial trial. Consider the following claim: X sold the most houses in the county last year.  This might or might not be true; we have various means of getting at the truth; we might even have conflicting evidence (records, after all, may be imperfect; sometimes the best evidence comes from fallible human memory, or human testimony that might require a factfinder’s credibility evaluation).  Could anyone seriously maintain that “X sold the most houses in the county last year” cannot be false if the defendant possesses evidence sufficient to avoid a verdict on summary judgment?  What’s so different about “science”? 

What the GNC line of cases is really saying is that courts will not engage in the very process they’re constituted to engage in if a consumer protection case requires a factfinder, as the court makes clear when it says “under California law a Plaintiff cannot maintain a false advertising claim when the defendant offers admissible expert testimony and scientific evidence supporting the advertisement in question.”  That is, the court will only look at one side of the evidence; I would call that not very judicious.  And by the way, this formulation means that in fact there is a substantiation requirement under California law—just one in which the quality of the substantiation is judged by a minimal standard, that of admissibility. When a rationale for a rule makes the rule a failure on its own terms, there is something deeply wrong.


Because there was competent evidence on both sides, the defendant won on summary judgment.  If you see something wrong with that previous sentence, then you see the problem with GNC.

Rite Aid Renewal After Sun Gel

by TINA @ Truth In Advertising

In September 2017, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Rite Aid for allegedly falsely advertising that its Renewal After Sun Gel is made of aloe when, according to the complaint, the gel does not contain any aloe at all. (Kalajian et al v. Rite Aid Corp., Case No. 17-cv-6777, C. D. CA.) For more information

The post Rite Aid Renewal After Sun Gel appeared first on Truth In Advertising.

Neutrogena Deep Clean Gentle Face Scrub, 4.2 Fl. Oz.
$4.89
Neutrogena Healthy Skin Anti-Wrinkle Cream Night With Retinol, 1.4 Oz.
$11.72
Neutrogena Oil-Free Acne Face Wash With Salicylic Acid, 9.1 Oz. (Pack of 3)
$24.02
Neutrogena Makeup Remover Cleansing Towelettes & Wipes, Refill Pack, 25 Count (pack of 6)
$37.14
Neutrogena Rainbath Refreshing Shower and Bath Gel- 40 oz (Mega Size)
$23.26
Neutrogena Rapid Wrinkle Repair Night Moisturize With Retinol, 1 Fl. Oz.
$19.99
Neutrogena Hydro Boost Water Gel, 1.7 Fl. Oz
$18.98
Neutrogena Microdermabrasion System Exfoliating Puff Refills, 24 Count
$12.99
Liquid Neutrogena Facial Cleansing Formula, 8 Fl. Oz
$6.69
Neutrogena Hydro Boost Gel-Cream, Extra-Dry Skin, 1.7 Oz
$18.98
Neutrogena Alcohol And Oil-Free Toner, 8.5 Oz.
$5.99
Neutrogena Rapid Wrinkle Repair Moisturizer With Spf 30, 1 Fl. Oz.
$19.99
Neutrogena Ageless Intensives Anti-Wrinkle Deep Wrinkle Daily Moisturizer With Retinol, Broad Spectrum Spf 20 Sunscreen, 1.4 Oz.
$21.99
Neutrogena Anti-Residue Shampoo, 6 Fl. Oz.
$4.89
Neutrogena Body Oil, Light Sesame Formula, Sesame Scented Oil, 16 Fl. Oz.
$22.55
Neutrogena Oil-Free Moisture Sensitive Skin, 4 Fl. Oz.
$9.74
Neutrogena Rapid Clear Maximum Strength Treatment Pads, 60 Count
$10.69
Neutrogena Rapid Wrinkle Repair Regenerating Cream, 1.7 Oz
$26.92
Neutrogena Rapid Clear Stubborn Acne Cleanser, 5 Oz
$8.78
Neutrogena Oil-Free Acne Face Wash Daily Scrub With Salicylic Acid, 4.2 Fl. Oz.
$5.22
Neutrogena Transparent Facial Bar Bonus Pack, Original Formula - 6 ea, 3.5 oz each, total 21 oz
$15.90
Neutrogena Light Therapy Acne Treatment Mask
$37.68
Neutrogena Deep Clean Cream Cleanser, 7 Fl. Oz
$5.19
Neutrogena Healthy Skin Anti-Wrinkle System With Retinol, 1 Kit
$20.61
Neutrogena Rainbath Refreshing Shower And Bath Gel, Body Wash, Original, 16 Fl. Oz.
$13.99
Neutrogena Triple Age Repair Moisturizer, Night, 1.7 Oz
$17.90
Neutrogena Ultra Gentle Hydrating Cleanser For Sensitive Skin, 12 Fl. Oz.
$8.19
Neutrogena Pore Refining Daily Cleanser, 6.7 Fl. Oz.
$7.99
Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Dry-Touch Sunscreen, Broad Spectrum Spf 100, 3 Fl. Oz.
$10.99
Neutrogena Body Clear Body Wash, Salicylic Acid Acne Treatment, Pink Grapefruit, 8.5 Fl. Oz. (Pack of 3)
$25.00
Neutrogena Pore Refining Toner, Pore Cleanser, 8.5 Fl. Oz.
$10.51
Neutrogena Rapid Wrinkle Repair Eye Cream With Retinol, 0 .5 Fl. Oz.
$19.99
Neutrogena Age Shield Face Oil-Free Lotion Sunscreen Broad Spectrum Spf 110, 3 Fl. Oz.
$12.99
Neutrogena Rapid Tone Repair Dark Spot Corrector, 1 Oz
$19.28
Neutrogena Complete Acne Therapy System
$23.99
Neutrogena Skinclearing Blemish Concealer, Light 10, .05 Oz.
$6.94
Neutrogena Rapid Clear 2-In-1 Fight & Fade Acne Toner, 8 Fl. Oz.
$10.69
Neutrogena Light Therapy Acne Mask Activator, 30 Count
$16.05
Neutrogena Visibly Even Daily Moisturizer With Broad Spectrum Spf 30 Sunscreen, 1.7 Fl. Oz.
$18.53
Neutrogena Rapid Tone Repair Night Moisturizer With Retinol, 1 Fl. Oz.
$19.99
Neutrogena Mineral Sheers Loose Powder Foundation 20, Natural Ivory 20, .19 Oz.
$11.00
Neutrogena Healthy Skin Anti-Wrinkle Anti-Blemish Cleanser, 5.1 Ounce (Pack of 3)
$25.17
Neutrogena Triple Moisture Daily Deep Conditioner For Dry Hair Moisturizing, 8.5 Fl. Oz. (Pack of 3)
$19.77
Neutrogena Healthy Skin Liquid Makeup Foundation, Broad Spectrum Spf 20, 30 Buff, 1 Oz.
$12.77
Neutrogena Naturals Multi-Vitamin Nourishing Face Moisturizer, 3 Fl. Oz.
$12.99
Neutrogena T/Gel Therapeutic Shampoo Original Formula, Dandruff Treatment, 4.4 Fl. Oz.
$7.59
Neutrogena Skinclearing Makeup, 10 Classic Ivory, 1 Fl. Oz.
$13.99
Neutrogena Norwegian Formula Intensive Moisture Wrap Body Treatment Ff, 10.5 Oz
$10.37
Neutrogena Hydro Boost Eye Gel-Cream, 0.5 Fl. Oz
$18.98
Neutrogena Healthy Skin Boosters Facial Cleanser, 9 Fl. Oz
$7.97
Neutrogena Moisturesmooth Color Stick, 60 Soft Raspberry, .011 Oz.
$8.10
Neutrogena Revitalizing Lip Balm Spf 20, Petal Glow 40, .15 Oz.
$8.99
Neutrogena Body Sheer-Oil Lotion For Dry Skin , Light Sesame Formula, 32 Fl. Oz
$16.93
Neutrogena Men Triple Protect Face Lotion with Sunscreen SPF 20 1.70 oz (Pack of 4)
Neutrogena Rainbath Multi-Pack of 3, 1 Original Formula, 1 Pomegranate and 1 Ocean Mist, 16 fl oz bottles
$29.99
Neutrogena Light Facial Night Cream, 2.25 Oz.
$10.34
Neutrogena Oil-Free Acne Wash Redness Soothing Facial Cleanser With Salicylic Acid, 6 Fl. Oz.
$10.69
Neutrogena Skinclearing Mineral Powder, Natural Beige 60, .38 Oz., (Pack of 2)
$16.94
Neutrogena Oil-Free Acne Face Wash With Salicylic Acid, Pink Grapefruit, 6 Fl. Oz. (Pack of 3)
$25.00
Neutrogena Hydro Boost Hydrating Serum, 1 Fl. Oz
$19.46
Neutrogena Norwegian Formula Hand Cream Fragrance Free, 2 Oz (Pack of 6)
$23.82
Neutrogena Visibly Even Bb Cream Daily Moisturizer SPF 30, Light-Medium, 1.7 Fl. Oz
$14.94
Neutrogena Naturals Purifying Pore Scrub, 4 Fl. Oz. (Pack of 3)
$18.81
Neutrogena Healthy Skin Anti-Aging Perfector Spf 20, Retinol Treatment, 30 Light To Neutral, 1 Fl. Oz.
$12.07
Neutrogena Wet Skin Kids Stick Sunscreen Broad Spectrum Spf 70, 0.47 Oz.
$9.00
Neutrogena Men Triple Protect Face Lotion With Sunscreen, Broad Spectrum Spf 20, 1.7 Fl. Oz (Pack of 2)
$11.38
Neutrogena Hydro Boost Hydrating Gel Cleanser, 6 Ounce
$7.80
Neutrogena Healthy Skin Compact Makeup Foundation, Broad Spectrum Spf 55, Buff 30, .35 Oz.
$8.99
Neutrogena Rapid Wrinkle Repair Serum With Retinol, 1 Fl. Oz.
$19.99
Neutrogena Rapid Dark Circle Repair Eye Cream, .13 Fl. Oz
$21.00
Neutrogena Hydrating Makeup Remover Cleansing Facial Towelettes, 25 Count (pack of 3)
$20.97
Neutrogena Hydro Boost Hydrating Tint, 1.0 Fl. Oz. 40 / Nude
$15.02
Neutrogena Cooldry Sport Sunscreen Lotion Broad Spectrum SPF 70, 5 Oz
$11.85
Neutrogena Deep Clean Invigorating Foaming Face Scrub, 4.2 Fl. Oz.
$10.08
Neutrogena Healthy Skin Anti-Aging Perfector Spf 20, Retinol Treatment, 40 Neutral To Tan, 1 Fl. Oz.
$12.68
Neutrogena Cleansing Wipes, Oil-free, Acne-prone Skin, Pink Grapefruit, 25 Ct (Pack 2)
$22.90
Neutrogena T/Sal Shampoo, Scalp Build-up Control, 4.5 fl oz
$7.99
Neutrogena Naturals Purifying Facial Cleanser With Salicylic Acid, 6 Fl. Oz.
$6.39
Neutrogena Oil-Free Moisture, Combination Skin, 4 Ounce
Neutrogena Rapid Clear Acne Eliminating Spot Gel With Salicylic Acid, 0.5 Fl. Oz. (Pack of 3)
$23.97
Neutrogena Visibly Even Foaming Cleanser, 5.1 Ounce
$10.29
Neutrogena Healthy Skin Blends, 10 Clean, Face Makeup, .3 Oz.
$11.03
Neutrogena T/Gel Daily Control 2-In-1 Dandruff Shampoo Plus Conditioner, 8.5 Fl. Oz.
$10.85
Neutrogena Naturals Fresh Cleansing And Makeup Remover, 6 Ounce (Pack of 2)
$13.83
Neutrogena Healthy Skin Firming Cream SPF 15, 2.5 Fl. Oz
$12.35
Neutrogena Oil-Free Acne Stress Control Power-Clear Scrub, 4.2 Fl. Oz.
$7.04
Neutrogena Healthy Skin Eye Cream, 0.5 Oz
$12.99
Neutrogena Skinclearing Mineral Powder, Natural Ivory 20, .38 Oz.
$9.88
Neutrogena Ultra Sheer Face & Body Stick Sunscreen Broad Spectrum Spf 70, 1.5 Oz.
$10.17
Neutrogena Oil-Free Moisture, Sensitive Skin, 4 Ounce (Pack of 2)
$23.98
Neutrogena Hydro Boost Water Gel SPF 15, 1.7 Oz
$18.98
Neutrogena Sheer Oil-Lotion, Skin-Silkening Moisturizer 8.50 oz
$8.99
Neutrogena Oil-Free Acne Stress Control Power-Cream Wash, 6 Fl. Oz.(Pack of 3)
$22.01
Neutrogena Fragrance Free Liquid Neutrogena, Facial Cleansing Formula, 8-Ounce Pump Bottles (Pack of 4)
$22.39
Neutrogena Body Clear Body Wash for Clean, Clear Skin, 8.5 Ounce (Pack of 2)
$14.15
Neutrogena Body Clear Body Wash, Pink Grapefruit, 8.5 Ounce
$8.33
Neutrogena Oil-Free Acne Face Wash Cream Cleanser, 6.7 Fl. Oz. (Pack of 6)
$32.82
Neutrogena Therapeutic Shampoo 4.5 oz, 2 Pack
$15.75
Neutrogena Beach Defense Body Spray Sunscreen Broad Spectrum SPF 70, 6.5 Oz
$10.17
Neutrogena Clear Face Liquid Lotion Sunscreen For Acne-Prone Skin, Broad Spectrum Spf 55, 3 Fl. Oz.
$10.99
About - Contact - Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Bravo Probiotic Yogurt