Rodin + Fields Lash Boost is designed to help condition and strengthen lashes. But in three class-action lawsuits filed in 2018, consumers allege that, among other things, the company failed to disclose information about the potential risks of one of Lash Boost’s ingredients, isopropyl chloroprostatate, which can cause eye irritation and iris and other adverse reactions, the color changes. Rodan + Fields has denied the allegations, and now, four years later, the company has reached a settlement with the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
As part of the agreement, Rodan + Fields offered to pay $38 million. Consumers who purchase a Rodan + Fields Lash Boost between October 1, 2016 and March 11, 2022 are eligible to receive up to $175 in cash benefits or up to $250 in vouchers that can be used on any Rodan + Fields product, If they submit a claim form by September 7, 2022. They also do not need to provide proof of purchase.
In a statement from Rodan + Fields, the brand said it was pleased to have reached a resolution that was in the “best interests” of all parties involved. “The health, safety and satisfaction of our valued customers remains our top priority[y]we are proud and supportive of Lash Boost, a much-loved, industry-recognized innovation that has been used by millions of customers over the past five-plus years,” the statement read.
In addition to the alleged lack of information about potential side effects, the lawsuit alleges that Rodan + Fields falsely marketed Lash Boost and contained isopropyl chloroprostatate (a prostate cancer) in the same class of ingredients used in the drug used to treat glaucoma vitamin analogs) means that the product should be considered a drug and therefore regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Prostaglandin analogs were first considered promising for promoting eyelash growth when patients undergoing glaucoma treatment reported long eyelashes as a side effect. For example, the eyelash growth therapy Latisse contains a prostaglandin analog called bimatoprost. But, according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology, while bimatoprost in Latisse is FDA-approved, “isopropyl chloroprost, the prostaglandin analog commonly found in over-the-counter products, is not.” Under FDA rules, products that are designed to affect body structure or function and have potential side effects are considered drugs, not cosmetics, and should be regulated.