SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                    Washington, DC 20549

                           Form 8K

                       CURRENT REPORT

             Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of
             The Securities Exchange Act of 1934



DATE OF REPORT:  May 23, 2002



                    CCA Industries, Inc.

     (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter)

                          DELAWARE

      (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or
                        organization)

                          2-85538-B

                  (Commission File Number)

                         04-2795439

            (IRS Employer Identification Number)

 200 Murray Hill Parkway, East Rutherford, New Jersey 07073

     (Address of principal executive offices, zip code)

                       (201) 330-1400

     (Registrant's telephone number including area code)



                              -1-


Item 3.

The  Company has been named as a defendant in three lawsuits
alleging that the plaintiffs were injured as result of their
purchasing  and  ingesting  our  diet  suppressant   product
containing  phenylpropanolamine ("PPA"), which  the  Company
utilized  as its active ingredient in its products prior  to
November  2000.   The  Company's  current  products  do  not
contain PPA.

The lawsuits brought against CCA Industries, Inc. are for an
unspecified  amount  of compensatory and exemplary  damages.
PPA  has  been  utilized  in both decongestion  and  dietary
products  for  approximately 52  years.   The  FDA,  in  its
monograph  prior  to November 2000, recommended  PPA  as  an
appetite suppressant.  The Company believes that it followed
the  monograph's  suggestion for  the  information  that  it
placed on the products' package.

The  Company  is insured for product liability covering  all
three  outstanding cases.  The Company is also  named  as  a
named  insured  under  a  similar  policy  provided  by  the
supplier  that  sold the PPA to the Company.   Although  the
Company  had  product  liability  insurance  for  the  three
outstanding  lawsuits, there can be no assurance  that  such
coverage and the counter claim against the supplier will  be
sufficient to satisfy such claims.

The Company's policy, covering the products using PPA as the
active  ingredient, expired on May 1, 2002 and has not  been
renewed  by  the Company.  The Company is no longer  selling
any products utilizing PPA and has not done so since October
2000.   The  policy  was not renewed because  the  insurance
premium  to obtain the coverage was, in the opinion  of  the
Board  of  Directors, excessive and did not provide feasible
economic  coverage.  The Company is still  seeking  what  is
referred  to  as a "catastrophic loss" policy in  the  event
that  a possible catastrophic damage may be incurred in  the
future.  There can be no assurance that the insurance can be
obtained  or  that  the premium might be excessive  and  not
deemed economically practicable.

Background:

In  1994  the Nonprescription Drug Manufacturers Association
(now  the Consumer Healthcare Products Association) ("CHPA")
initiated a large-scale study in conjunction with  the  Yale
University  School  of  Medicine to investigate  a  possible
association, if any, of stroke in women aged 18 to 49  using
PPA which, until November 2000, was the active ingredient in
certain  of the Permathene products (the "Yale Study").  PPA
is  also  used  in other over-the-counter medications  which
were  also part of the Yale Study. In May 2000, the  results
of  the  Yale  Study  were  filed with  the  Food  and  Drug
Administration ("FDA"). The investigators concluded that the
results  of  the Yale Study suggest that PPA  increases  the

                          -2-

risks of hemorrhagic stroke. The FDA indicated at that  time
that  no immediate action was required and scheduled an  FDA
advisory  panel  to  meet in October  2000  to  discuss  the
results  of the study. The CHPA has questioned the execution
of the Yale Study and disagreed with its conclusions.

On   October  19,  2000  a  Nonprescription  Drugs  Advisory
Committee  ("NDAC"), commissioned by the FDA to  review  the
safety  of  PPA,  determined that there  is  an  association
between PPA and hemorrhagic stroke and recommended that  PPA
not  be considered generally recognized as safe for OTC  use
as  a nasal decongestant or for weight control.  In response
to  a  general  request from the FDA to  the  industry,  the
Company voluntarily ceased marketing Permathene and Mega  16
with  PPA,  The Company announced on November  7,  2000  its
decision to immediately cease shipping the products with PPA
and  to accept product returns from any retailers who decide
to  discontinue marketing the products with PPA.   To  date,
the  FDA  has not issued any final determinations concerning
the ingredient, PPA or products containing PPA.

Contingencies

The  Company intends to vigorously defend the three  current
lawsuits  and any possible litigations.  The issue is  being
defended by many of the major pharmaceutical companies  such
as,   the   Bayer   Corporation,  American   Home   Products
Corporation, Novartis Pharmaceutical Company, Ciba  Consumer
Pharmaceuticals,  Glaxosmith  Klein,  Bristol  Myers  Squibb
Company,  Chattem,  Inc., et al,  that sold famous products,
for   example,  Alka  Seltzer,  Robitussin,  Chlor-Trimiton,
Dimetapp, Dexotrim, etc., using PPA as the active ingredient
in   cough  and  cold,  decongestion  and  diet  suppressant
products.  Because the litigation has just begun, it is  not
possible  to determine how the outcome of these  matters  or
the  effect that these or any possible lawsuits could effect
the Company's financial position or operating results.

The   major  pharmaceutical  companies,  as  well  as   this
Company's principal competitor in the diet products  market,
believe  that there is merit to the defense of the lawsuits.
In  addition, because the Company has not sold  any  product
containing  PPA  since  October  2000,  there  may   be   an
additional defense, the Statute of Limitations of any future
litigation.

Management believes that the Company's defenses have  merit.
However, there can be no assurance that the Company will  be
successful  in  its defense, that its current insurance  and
cross claim over against its supplier will be adequate  and/
or successful and that the lawsuits will not have a material
adverse  effect  on the Company's results of operations  for
any period or on the Company's financial position.


                                -3-


                         SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Act of  1934,
the  registrant has duly caused this report to be signed  on
its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

Dated: May 23, 2002


CCA Industries, Inc.
     Registrant




By:
     Ira W. Berman, Secretary















                                    -4-