The Zicam class action centers on a familiar consumer problem in the over-the-counter cold remedy market: products often promise faster recovery from the common cold, even though colds are caused by viruses that typically resolve on their own and are notoriously difficult to “treat” in a way that measurably shortens duration. Plaintiffs alleged that certain Zicam-branded products were marketed as able to shorten the length of a cold and reduce symptom severity, and that those messages could mislead shoppers looking for evidence-backed relief. Church & Dwight, Zicam’s parent company, denied wrongdoing and said it had reliable scientific support, but agreed to a $6 million settlement; eligible purchasers in the U.S. who bought Zicam products before Oct. 17, 2024 could seek small payments per product (with higher amounts for those who can document purchases), reflecting how consumer-fraud class actions often spread a settlement fund across many transactions. The lawsuit’s significance is less about any one consumer’s payout and more about policing advertising claims in a space where “clinically proven” language can strongly influence buying decisions. These cases typically rely on state consumer-protection statutes and federal standards that require health-related claims in advertising to be truthful, not misleading, and supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence—an approach shaped by Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforcement and, for some products, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules governing OTC drug labeling and marketing. Similar false-advertising suits have targeted cold, flu, and supplement brands over claims about speed of recovery, immune boosting, or symptom reduction, and they can push companies toward tighter substantiation, more cautious wording, and clearer disclosures when clinical results are limited, mixed, or depend on specific formulations and study conditions