CVS Sued for Marketing “Anti-Fungal” Liquid That Can’t Treat Nail Fungus

Case Overview: A proposed class action alleges CVS falsely advertised its “Maximum Strength Anti-Fungal Liquid” as a nail fungus treatment even though its active ingredient cannot treat nail infections.

Consumers Affected: U.S. and California residents who purchased CVS’s “Maximum Strength Anti-Fungal Liquid” believing it would treat nail fungus.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

CVS Pharmacy is facing a class action lawsuit that accuses the retailer of misleading shoppers about what one of its over-the-counter antifungal products can treat.

The case centers on CVS’s Maximum Strength Anti-Fungal Liquid, which the plaintiff says was marketed as a solution for nail fungus even though the active ingredient cannot treat that condition.

The complaint, filed in federal court in California, says the packaging gave customers the impression that the product could eliminate nail fungus. The label features the words “Anti-Fungal Liquid” and “Maximum Strength” beside an image of smooth, healthy toenails. 

Plaintiff William Foreman says that combination of language and imagery led him to believe the product would work on fungal infections beneath the nail.

Foreman later discovered that the active ingredient, tolnaftate, is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating nail fungus.

He claims CVS misrepresented what the liquid could do and sold it to consumers who would not have purchased it had they known the truth.

FDA Rules Say Tolnaftate Can’t Treat Nail Infections

Tolnaftate is an antifungal ingredient used to treat common skin infections such as athlete’s foot and ringworm. It is not effective against infections that develop under the nail.

Federal guidelines require companies selling tolnaftate-based products to include a disclaimer explaining that they are not suitable for nail or scalp infections.

According to the lawsuit, CVS failed to include that disclosure on its packaging. Instead, the pharmacy chain promoted the liquid as a nail treatment. Foreman’s lawsuit says that omission left customers with the wrong impression about the product’s effectiveness.

The complaint contends that CVS “misleadingly marketed a product as a nail fungus treatment while knowing its ingredient cannot reach or cure the infection” and also takes issue with how CVS presented the product in stores. 

Foreman says the antifungal liquid was displayed near genuine nail fungus treatments, which added to the confusion about its purpose.

The use of “Maximum Strength” on the label suggested a higher-grade medical product, and the image of clean toenails reinforced the idea that the product was meant for nail fungus. Foreman says these marketing tactics influenced shoppers who rely on quick visual cues when making purchases.

“Consumers depend on what they see on the front of the package,” the lawsuit states. “Here, those claims did not match the product’s capabilities.”

Packaging and Store Placement Allegedly Misled Shoppers

Fungal nail infections are one of the most common conditions treated by podiatrists in the United States. They can be persistent and often require months of medical treatment. Many consumers try over-the-counter remedies before turning to prescription options.

The lawsuit says shoppers are particularly vulnerable to misleading packaging in this category because most products appear similar on store shelves. A customer who sees the words “Anti-Fungal Liquid” next to a picture of clear toenails might assume they are purchasing a treatment designed specifically for nail fungus.

Attorneys for Foreman argue that CVS took advantage of that expectation by promoting the product as a remedy for a condition it cannot treat.

CVS Faces Ongoing Scrutiny Over Product Marketing Practices

This case follows other recent lawsuits involving CVS and its marketing practices. In September, the company’s pharmacy benefit division, CVS Caremark, was sued over coverage decisions related to the weight-loss drug Zepbound. That case alleged the company limited patient access by favoring a competitor’s medication.

Although unrelated, both lawsuits question how CVS communicates with consumers about health products and treatments.

In the CVS antifungal class action lawsuit, Foreman is asking the court to represent customers across the United States who purchased CVS’s antifungal liquid, as well as a subclass of California residents.

He is requesting refunds for affected buyers, financial damages, and a court order requiring CVS to change its packaging to clarify that the product cannot treat nail infections.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Foreman v. CVS Pharmacy Inc.
• Case Number: 3:25-cv-02147-WQH-AHG
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California

Plaintiffs' Attorney:

• Nisha Wright (The Wright Law Office P.A.)
• Manfred P. Muecke (Manfred APC)

Have you bought CVS’s “Anti-Fungal” products for nail issues? Did they work as promised? Share your thoughts in the comments below.