Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, DEFENSES TO LIABILITY—HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS—E.D. Okla.: Tanning lotion maker gets summary judgment in anaphylaxis suit, (Jul 28, 2026)

By Donielle Tigay Stutland, J.D.

The consumer failed to show a cognizable defect in Love Bronze lotion that rendered it unreasonably dangerous to ordinary consumers.

The federal court in the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted summary judgment to a tanning lotion manufacturer in a suit brought by a consumer alleging that its products caused a severe allergic reaction. The court granted the product manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment in full and denied the consumer’s motion for partial summary judgment, rejecting the affirmative defenses of assumption of risk and intervening cause. The court held that the consumer’s failure-to-warn and labeling theories were expressly preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act) and its implementing cosmetic regulations. The court also held that the consumer's remaining product-based theories, including design defect, manufacturing defect, ordinary negligence, negligent training, or negligent supervision, also fail because the record neither established a cognizable defect in the lotion that rendered it unreasonably dangerous to ordinary consumers nor supplies non-speculative evidence that any such defect caused the consumer's anaphylactic reaction (Mattox v. Product Innovations Research, LLC, No. 6:24-cv-235-JAR (E.D. Okla. July 17, 2026)).

Background. On May 12, 2022, the plaintiff Suzanna Mattox went to the emergency department at an Oklahoma hospital with severe respiratory distress. She suffered respiratory and cardiovascular collapse (possibly anaphylaxis) and was airlifted to Baptist Medical Center in Fort Smith, Arkansas, where she remained until discharge on May 21, 2022.

At a follow-up doctor’s appointment, the consumer told her physician she had used a tanning lotion called “Love Bronze” on May 12. The physician noted the consumer’s nut allergy and that almond oil was in the lotion. Clinic staff photographed the bottle but later discarded it after another employee used it. The consumer did not take a picture of the batch code. The consumer had purchased the lotion on May 9, 2022, at a local tanning salon.

Defendant Cosway Company, Inc. (Cosway) manufactured three batches of Love Bronze (a cosmetic suntanning preparation without sunscreen) in 2016 and 2017. Love Bronze is a cosmetic lotion without sunscreen or active SPF ingredients. Defendant Product Innovations Research, LLC d/b/a Sunevolutions (PIR) used Cosway’s ingredient lists to create the labels for Love Bronze. The label listed ingredients in descending order of predominance, stated “Does not Contain Parabens,” and carried the FDA mandated warning about lack of sun protection. Neither Cosway nor the FDA had received any prior adverse-event reports for Love Bronze, although the complaint alleged that FDA had cited Cosway in 2017 for lack of reporting failures on other products. At the time of manufacture, PIR had no Oklahoma distributors.

The consumer and her husband filed a suit sued in Oklahoma state court in April 2024 asserting claims for ordinary negligence, negligent training, negligent supervision, and strict products liability (design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, and labeling/marketing claims). The case was removed to federal court on diversity grounds. Both parties moved for summary judgment.

Preemption. The court began its analysis by concluding that the consumer’s failure-to-warn and labeling claims are expressly preempted by 21 U.S.C. § 379s and the implementing cosmetic-labeling regulations (21 C.F.R. §§ 701.3 and 740.19).

Product identification and spoliation. The tanning lotion makers next argued that the remaining products-liability based theories all fail because the consumer did not retain the specific bottle of Love Bronze allegedly used, the photographs of the tanning lotion do not show a batch code, and PIR had no distributors in Oklahoma when Cosway manufactured Love Bronze in 2016 and 2017. Moreover, the manufacturers’ argued that “without the physical product and batch code, plaintiffs cannot establish that Mrs. Mattox used a product manufactured and distributed by defendants or that any defect existed when the product left defendants' control.” However, the court detailed that, Oklahoma manufacturers' products liability law “does not require that the product be preserved or introduced at trial.” The loss of the bottle did not warrant spoliation sanctions or an adverse inference. The court noted that a reasonable jury could find, from the product name, labeling, branding, and witness testimony, that the consumer used the manufacturer’s tanning lotion.

Product defect and causation. The manufacturer’s next argument was that the consumer cannot establish a cognizable product defect or causation, relying on "rare allergic reaction" authority from other jurisdictions to assert that a hypersensitive reaction, standing alone, is insufficient to support product-based theories. The court noted that, Oklahoma law “permits plaintiffs to rely on circumstantial evidence and expert opinion, but it requires that the resulting inference of defect and causation be grounded in a concrete theory and remain consistent with undisputed facts.”

Here, the court concluded that the consumers have not identified a specific design or manufacturing defect that rendered Love Bronze unreasonably dangerous to ordinary consumers, and the timing and circumstances of the consumer's reaction more closely align with the application of a different product. Medical records showed the onset of symptoms immediately after application of an anti-inflammatory cream, and the consumer had used Love Bronze repeatedly in the preceding days without severe reaction. The consumer had not shown actual allergen testing or that the product maker lacked internal protocols or external consultants to assess sensitization or cross-reactivity risks. The consumer failed to establish a design or manufacturing defect that rendered the product unreasonably dangerous to the ordinary consumer. The court granted the lotion maker judgment as a matter of law on the consumers' remaining product-based theories.

Punitive damages. The court found that the consumers’ punitive damages claim fails for two independent reasons. First, the court concluded that the consumers cannot establish a viable negligence or manufacturers' products liability claim. Second, even if an underlying tort claim survived, the court indicated that the summary-judgment record would not permit a reasonable jury to find the heightened culpability required by § 9.1.

Plantiffs’ motion. The court concluded that the consumers’ motion for partial summary judgment on the manufacturers' affirmative defenses of assumption of risk and intervening cause is denied as moot in light of the court's decision with respect to the underlying claims.

The case is No. 6:24-cv-235-JAR.

Judge: Robertson, J.

Attorneys: Timothy Ryan Scott (Oliver Law Firm PLLC) for Suzanna Mattox. Theresa N. Hill (Rhodes Hieronymus, PLLC) for Product Innovations Research LLC.

Companies: Product Innovations Research LLC

Cases: CourtDecisions DefensesLiabilityNews HouseholdProductsNews DesignManufacturingNews WarningsNews DamagesNews PreemptionNews OklahomaNews