If a deodorant or antiperspirant burned the skin under your arm, stop using it and get medical care. A doctor can confirm whether it is a burn and how deep it goes. Keep the product, its packaging and the receipt. If a product defect caused the injury, California law may allow a product-liability claim, meaning a claim for harm caused by an unsafe product. The facts decide whether a claim exists. H Law Group explains below what California law looks at.
What this injury may be
Irritation, a rash and a chemical burn may look alike. A doctor can confirm which one it is. Doctors grade burns by depth as first, second or third degree.
FDA regulates antiperspirants, which reduce sweat where they are applied, as over-the-counter drugs under rules now carried forward as OTC Monograph M019.
Get medical care first
Stop using the product and see a doctor promptly, even if the injury seems minor.
For a chemical burn on the skin, MedlinePlus advises these first steps:
- brush off any dry product
- remove clothing and jewelry from the area
- flush the skin with cool running water for 15 minutes or more
- do not use ice, and do not break blisters
The same MedlinePlus pages list when to call 911 or get emergency care. If in doubt, do not wait.
What to keep
- the product and anything left in it; do not throw it away or return it
- the container, packaging, label and warnings, including any printed codes
- the receipt or order record
- medical records and bills
- private photos of the affected area over time
Store the product sealed, upright and away from heat. See what to preserve after a product injury.
If a product caused this, California law may apply
Under Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, a maker can be held responsible for an injury caused by a defect, meaning a flaw that makes a product unsafe, without proof that it was careless. The injured person still needs to show that the product had a defect and that the defect caused the harm.
Under Barker v. Lull Engineering, a manufacturing defect means a unit differs from what the maker intended; a design defect means the design itself is unsafe. Under Anderson v. Owens-Corning, a product can also be defective if it lacked a warning about risks known or knowable when it was distributed. For a skin product, that may mean asking whether a batch went wrong or whether the label warned of this kind of injury. To read more, see what makes a product legally defective in California and how strict liability works.
Common causes
Products appear here only where a filed public court record connects them to this kind of injury. A listing does not mean a product caused anyone's injury.
- Old Spice deodorant, allegations only. In Colley, No. 1:16-cv-918 (S.D. Ohio), a 2016 federal lawsuit filed in Ohio, plaintiffs alleged that Old Spice deodorant caused chemical burns, skin peeling, open scabbing wounds and permanent scarring, and that the label warned only of rash or irritation. The manufacturer said the problems were skin reactions, not burns, possibly from alcohol sensitivity. In an October 4, 2016 order, the court granted the manufacturer's motion to strike the class allegations and dismiss claims, and gave the plaintiffs 21 days to ask to amend their complaint. This page does not describe how the case ended. This Ohio case is not California law.
Sources
- Colley v. Procter & Gamble Co., Order Granting Defendant's Motion to Strike Class Allegations and Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 11), U.S. District Court, S.D. Ohio, via U.S. Government Publishing Office (govinfo). Colley v. Procter & Gamble Co., No. 1:16-cv-918 (S.D. Ohio, W. Div., Oct. 4, 2016)
- Colley v. Proctor & Gamble Co., 2:16-cv-00225, Free Law Project (CourtListener), copy of federal court docket. Colley v. Proctor & Gamble Co., No. 2:16-cv-00225 (S.D. Ohio, filed Mar. 11, 2016)
- Lawsuit claims Old Spice deodorant caused chemical burns, Fox News
- Antiperspirant Drug Products For Over-the-Counter Human Use; Final Monograph, Federal Register (U.S. Food and Drug Administration). 68 FR 34273 (June 9, 2003); 21 CFR parts 310, 350, 369
- Rulemaking History for OTC Antiperspirant Drug Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration
- Final Administrative Order OTC000015, OTC Monograph M019: Antiperspirant Drug Products for OTC Human Use, U.S. Food and Drug Administration. FDA Final Administrative Order OTC000015 (OTC Monograph M019)
- FDA Issues Updated Instructions for Serious Adverse Event Reporting for Cosmetic Products, U.S. Food and Drug Administration
- Chemical burn or reaction, MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine
- Burns, MedlinePlus, U.S. National Library of Medicine
- Greenman v. Yuba Power Products, Inc., 59 Cal.2d 57 (1963), Supreme Court of California Resources (SCOCAL), Stanford Law School. 59 Cal.2d 57
- Barker v. Lull Engineering Co., 20 Cal.3d 413 (1978), Supreme Court of California Resources (SCOCAL), Stanford Law School. 20 Cal.3d 413
- Anderson v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 53 Cal.3d 987 (1991), Supreme Court of California Resources (SCOCAL), Stanford Law School. 53 Cal.3d 987
Deadlines to file a California product-liability claim
California's default deadline for a product liability personal injury claim is two years from the date of injury under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. Different deadlines apply in several common situations:
- Injuries to minors: the clock is generally tolled until the minor's 18th birthday under Code of Civil Procedure § 352(a).
- Wrongful death claims: governed by Code of Civil Procedure §§ 335.1 and 377.60; the two-year period runs from the date of death, not the date of injury, and only certain family members may bring the claim.
- Injuries discovered later: under the discovery rule, the clock may not start until you knew or reasonably should have known that a product caused your injury.
- Government defendants: shorter deadlines apply, including a six-month claim-filing requirement under the Government Claims Act.
Deadlines are strict and case-specific. If you think a product injured you or a family member, contact an attorney promptly. Waiting can end your right to file even a strong case.