CASE NAME: Gerald White and Tony Malone v. Arcadia Consumer Healthcare Inc.
CASE NO.: Not specified in the complaint
JURISDICTION: United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
FILED ON: March 12, 2026
CLASS DEFINITION: All persons residing in Florida who purchased Fungi-Nail products during the four-year period preceding the filing of the complaint through the date of class certification.

SUMMARY:
A proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Arcadia Consumer Healthcare Inc. misled consumers by marketing its Fungi-Nail products as treatments capable of killing or curing nail fungus. According to the complaint, the products’ name and front-label statements—such as “Kills Fungus” and “Maximum Strength”—lead consumers to believe the products are effective treatments for nail fungus infections. The lawsuit contends that the products are not capable of killing nail fungus and that any disclaimers indicating otherwise appear only in inconspicuous fine print on the packaging. Plaintiffs allege they and other consumers purchased the products believing they would treat nail fungus, but the products did not provide the advertised benefit. The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and other remedies on behalf of Florida consumers who purchased the products.

ALLEGATIONS:
According to the complaint, Arcadia Consumer Healthcare manufactures and sells a line of antifungal products under the name “Fungi-Nail,” including liquid, spray, ointment, and pen applicator versions. These products are marketed and sold in retail stores and online nationwide, including throughout Florida. Plaintiffs allege that the product name itself, combined with prominent labeling statements such as “Kills Fungus” and “Clinically Proven to Cure and Prevent Fungal Infections,” conveys the message that the products are effective treatments for nail fungus infections, including toenail fungus.

The lawsuit claims that consumers commonly purchase antifungal products specifically to treat fungal infections affecting the nails. Plaintiffs contend that by naming the product “Fungi-Nail” and placing it in the foot-care or antifungal treatment section of stores, the company reinforces the impression that the product is intended for nail fungus treatment.

However, the complaint alleges that the products are not capable of killing or treating nail fungus. Plaintiffs assert that certain disclaimers on the packaging state that the product is “not effective on the scalp or nails” or “not for nail fungus.” These statements, the lawsuit claims, appear only in small print on non-front panels of the packaging and are not visible to consumers at the point of purchase when products are displayed front-facing on store shelves.

The complaint further alleges that Arcadia knew consumers were likely to rely on the front-label representations and product name when deciding whether to purchase the product. Plaintiffs claim the company also knew that consumers typically do not examine all sides of a product package or read fine-print disclaimers before making a purchase.

Plaintiff Gerald White alleges he purchased a bottle of Maximum Strength Fungi-Nail Anti-Fungal Liquid Spray at a Walmart store in Vero Beach, Florida in August 2025 for approximately $11. He claims he relied on the labeling indicating the product would kill fungus and used the product for several months without improvement to his toenail fungus.

Plaintiff Tony Malone alleges he purchased a Maximum Strength Fungi-Nail Anti-Fungal Liquid Pen at a Winn-Dixie store in Milton, Florida in February 2025 for approximately $7.01. Like the other plaintiff, he claims he relied on the front-label statements and experienced no improvement after using the product.

The lawsuit alleges that Arcadia’s labeling and marketing practices constitute fraud, fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs contend that consumers paid a price premium for the products based on the belief that they would treat nail fungus.

Plaintiffs seek certification of a Florida consumer class, monetary damages, restitution, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief requiring corrective labeling, attorneys’ fees, and other relief deemed appropriate by the court.