Claims that a widely sold homeopathic product provides pain relief are at the center of a new legal dispute, with consumers arguing they were misled by marketing statements on the product’s packaging. The complaint was filed by Constantine Glinka in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on April 28, 2026, naming Boiron, Inc. as the defendant.
According to court documents, Glinka alleges that Boiron, Inc., which manufactures and sells Boiron Arnicare products throughout the United States—including New York—misrepresented these products as providing “PAIN RELIEF.” The complaint states that these representations are false because scientific studies have shown that arnica montana, described as the active ingredient in Arnicare products, is not effective for pain relief.
The filing outlines how Glinka purchased a 2.6 oz package of Boiron Arnicare Gel from a CVS store in Brooklyn around March 2025 for approximately $12.49. He claims he relied on what he describes as false and misleading marketing about pain relief benefits but did not experience any such effects after using the product. The document further asserts that if Glinka had known about what he alleges are misrepresentations by Boiron, he would not have bought the product or would have paid less for it.
The complaint details various scientific studies and government reports cited to support its claims regarding homeopathy and arnica montana. For example, it references systematic reviews and meta-analyses concluding that “homeopathic products perform no better than placebos,” quoting a British Government report: “the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible.” Several clinical trials involving arnica montana are also mentioned in which arnica was found either ineffective or even associated with increased pain compared to placebo treatments.
Glinka brings his case under New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, which prohibit deceptive acts or practices and false advertising in business conduct within New York State. He argues that Boiron’s labeling was materially misleading to reasonable consumers about the quality of its products. The complaint states: “Defendant made false and misleading statements by marketing the Products as providing ‘PAIN RELIEF’ when they do no such thing.”
The plaintiff seeks to represent two classes: a nationwide class of all persons who purchased Boiron Arnicare products for personal use during the maximum period allowed by law, and a subclass consisting of New York purchasers only. According to Glinka’s attorneys, millions may be affected nationwide due to widespread sales of these consumer goods.
The legal arguments focus on whether Boiron’s advertising constitutes deceptive business practices under state law and whether consumers suffered economic harm as a result—either through purchasing something they otherwise would not have bought or paying more than they believe was warranted based on alleged misrepresentations.
As part of his requested relief from the court, Glinka asks for certification of both proposed classes; compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages; restitution; prejudgment interest; attorney fees; an order enjoining further allegedly illegal advertising practices; and corrective advertising measures by Boiron.
The complaint demands a jury trial on all issues so triable as of right. Attorney Joshua D. Arisohn of Arisohn LLC represents Constantine Glinka in this matter. The case is identified as Case No. 2:26-cv-02643.
Source: 226cv02643_Glinka_v_Boiron_Inc_Complaint_Eastern_District_New_York.pdf