Company Overview of Playtex Products, LLC
Playtex Products, LLC manufactures and sells personal care products for babies, toddlers, teens, and adults. It offers baby bottles, as well as baby bottle nipples and accessories; pacifiers, cups, plates, bowls, and utensils; disposal system refills, essentials disposal systems, and other filters; tampons, personal wipes, and sport body wipes; and cuff gloves, all-purpose disposable gloves, disposable food prep gloves, and long cuff disposable gloves. It markets and sells its products through online retailers and stores. The company was founded in 1932 and is based in New Providence, New Jersey. As of October 1, 2007, Playtex Products, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Energizer Holdings Inc.
890 Mountain Avenue
New Providence, NJ 07974
Founded in 1932
Key Executives for Playtex Products, LLC
Senior Vice President of Operations
Senior Vice President of Global Sales
Senior Vice President of Research & Development and Quality
Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
Vice President of Human Resources
Compensation as of Fiscal Year 2015.
Playtex Products, LLC Key Developments
Playtex Products, LLC Recalls Pacifier Holder Clips Due to Choking Hazard
Jan 22 14
Playtex Products, LLC recalled Playtex pacifier holder clips of 1.25 million in the U.S. and 150,000 in Canada. The reason for recall was pacifier holder clips can crack and a small part can break off which poses a choking hazard to small children. This recall involves the Playtex pacifier holder clips that attach a pacifier to items like clothing, diaper bags and strollers. It is a plastic clip with a figure and a 'Playtex' copyright logo that slides up and down to adjust the clip, a ribbon and a clear plastic ring that stretches to fit the pacifier. The pacifier holder was sold in green with a monkey figure, pink with a flower and blue with a tow truck. The product was sold from July 2010 through October 2013 for about $3.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Grants a Motion to Dismiss a Dispute over Energizer Holdings Inc., Playtex Products L.L.C. and Sun Pharmaceuticals L.L.C
Sep 15 13
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss a dispute over sunscreen distributors and sellers' ultraviolet B rays (UVB) protection claims, finding that the consumer had standing to pursue claims involving products she did not purchase. The district court held that dismissal of the inadequately pleaded breach of warranty claim was nevertheless appropriate. Energizer Holdings Inc., Playtex Products L.L.C. and Sun Pharmaceuticals L.L.C. (collectively, the defendants) distributed, marketed and sold sun and skincare products, including the Banana Boat SPF 85-110 collection. The collection consisted of 10 sunscreen products labeled with a SPF (sun protection factor) of 85 or greater. On November 26, 2012, Aida Corra filed a class action lawsuit against the defendants. She alleged the defendants claimed in advertisements that the Banana Boat SPF 85-110 collection provided superior UVB protection compared to lower SPF valued products when, in fact, they did not. Corra further alleged that the false and misleading advertising claims caused consumers to pay a premium price. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The district court found there was no basis to apply the primary jurisdiction doctrine as the defendants suggested. Whether the defendants violated California's consumer protection statutes by falsely marketing their sunscreen products was the type of question routinely answered by courts. The district court rejected the challenge to Corra's standing to assert claims relating to the nine products she did not purchase. The complaint adequately alleged that all products in the SPF 85-110 collection contained virtually identical active ingredients and were marketed in nearly the same manner. Corra alleged the defendants expressly warranted on their labeling that the products at issue provided greater UVB protection than comparable, lower SPF valued products. The district court concluded the allegations were not sufficient to state a breach of warranty claim. Even if the SPF ratings constituted a warranty, nothing in the complaint suggested that the products did not perform in accordance with their rating. The district court determined Corra could proceed with her request for monetary damages and restitution under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The district court dismissed the warranty claim with leave to amend. The court otherwise denied dismissal.
Similar Private Companies By Industry
Recent Private Companies Transactions
|No transactions available in the past 12 months.|