Professional Salon Products- Ingredient Disclosure Victory!

On September 14th, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the Professional Salon Products Labeling Act (AB 2775). Previously, ingredient labels were not required on professional salon products, leaving workers and consumers in the dark about harmful ingredients. Thanks to AB 2775, companies that sell professional nail, hair, and beauty salon products in California are now required to list ingredients on product labels. As companies move to comply with this new labeling law, the impact will be felt across the country. About time everyone!

 

Employee Lawsuit brought against Sephora for unpaid wages

Sephora is at the centre of an Employee Lawsuit after workers accused the retailer of failing to adequately compensate them for time spent going through security and applying make-up before a shift.

The lawsuit was brought against it in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, with a team of attorneys representing around 8,000 Sephora workers. The employees are asking the judge to grant class certification for the wage-and-hour lawsuit, according to a report by Top Class Actions.

However, despite Judge Karnow raising concerns that lack of solid evidence of the unpaid time spent in work could lead to liability issues, attorneys on the Sephora employee lawsuit countered that this lack of time logging was due to Sephora, which had a ‘duty to track’.

An attorney allegedly stated, “As far as liability goes, a lot of the claims involve time. You can’t allow an employer to avoid paying employees by virtue of the fact it didn’t track its time. That means an employee cannot prove his or her damages. If they had tracked time, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”

Sephora workers were said to have provided evidence that they are expected to wear and maintain their make up as part of their duties, while the lawsuit also alleged the retailer failed to provide ample rest and meal breaks.

The beauty retailer is said to have started compensating workers an extra three minutes for security bag checks, a move that attorneys argue is an acknowledgement by Sephora that it had been failing to do this previously.

Frédéric Fekkai Buys Back His Brand

Frédéric Fekkai, in partnership with Cornell Capital LLC, has taken back the brand he started by acquiring Frédéric Fekkai Brands.

Fekkai Brands creates hair and body care products, including shampoos, conditioners, treatments, hair fragrances and styling products. Additionally, the company owns and operates a number of salons across the US.

Fekkai, who founded his namesake brand in 1996, sold it in 2008 to Procter & Gamble. P&G then sold the brand in 2015 to a joint venture formed between the CEOs of Designer Parfums and Luxe Brands.  The ownership group selling off the company includes Dilesh Mehta, Tony Bajaj, Joel Ronkin and Amy Sachs

Blue Mistral LLC, a holding company founded by Fekkai and Cornell Capital, will own and operate Fekkai Brands together with Bastide, a fast-growing Provence-based provider of luxury fragrances and hand and body care products that Fekkai has led since 2017. As CEO of Blue Mistral, Fekkai will further accelerate the growth of the Fekkai Brands and salons by placing a heightened emphasis on education, innovation and the customer’s overall experience while leveraging opportunities for collaboration with Bastide.

“I am thrilled to rejoin Fekkai Brands and eager to reconnect with the salons, teams and consumers,” said Fekkai. “This acquisition will provide me the opportunity to reinfuse my passion for innovation into the brand, while reigniting its growth and guiding Fekkai Brands through its next chapter in a modern and exciting way.”

“The opportunity to partner with Frédéric, a proven entrepreneur in the beauty sector, as he returns to the helm of his iconic brand is truly compelling,” said Henry Cornell, senior partner of Cornell Capital. “Leveraging Cornell Capital’s cross-border network and operational expertise, and Frédéric’s deep relationships and reputation within the industry, Fekkai Brands is well-positioned to succeed in the growing global cosmetics and personal care industry.”

Ronkin, exiting CEO of Fekkai Brands added, “Frédéric is an accomplished entrepreneur with a proven track record of building highly desirable brands. We are confident that his return to the Company will be instrumental in fueling its growth and driving innovation.”

Salon Product Ingredient Disclosure Bill Is Now Law In California

 

Salon workers, who are overwhelmingly women, are exposed to a broad array of very toxic chemicals in the nail, hair, and beauty products they work with every day. They usually don’t have access to information about the toxicity of these products because professional beauty product ingredients aren’t required by law to be labeled.

The California Professional Cosmetics Labeling Requirements Act (AB 2775) co-sponsored by BCPP requires an ingredients list on professional cosmetic product labels. This bill gives nail, hair and beauty salon workers vital information about the chemicals they are exposed to day in and day out.  On May 30, 2018 AB 2775 passed the CA State Assembly with unanimous bi-partisan support (76 to 0).  On August 24, 2018 the bill passed the CA State Senate again with overwhelming bi-partisan support.  California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 2775 into law September 14, 2018.

Nail and hair salon workers, who are overwhelmingly women, are exposed to dangerous chemicals in hair dyes, straighteners and relaxers, make-up and nail products. In California, this means nearly a half million licensed nail and hair salon workers are exposed to chemicals like formaldehyde, toluene, phosphates, and other chemicals linked to cancer, reproductive harm, respiratory, and neurological harm every day.  Several studies have found elevated rates of breast cancer among hairdressers and cosmetologists. In fact, the International Agency for Research on Cancer lists “occupational exposures as a hairdresser or barber” as a probable carcinogen[1]. Studies show hair dressers experience an increased risk of miscarriage, giving birth to low birth weight babies, neurological conditions such as Alzheimer’s. Nail salon workers suffer negative impacts to maternal and fetal health as well as respiratory harm.  Currently, manufacturers must list ingredients on the labels of cosmetics sold at the retail level—this is good for the people who sell, buy, and use those products. However, the ingredients in professional cosmetics do not have to be listed on product labels. This lack of transparency makes it impossible for beauty professionals to make informed choices about the products they use and how to protect their health.

 

California Assembly Bill 2775 (CA AB 2775) gives salon workers the information they need to protect their health.  While federal regulation requires the labeling of ingredients in beauty and personal care products marketed to consumers and sold in retail settings, there is no equivalent disclosure requirement for products used in professional salon settings including nail, hair and beauty salons. This lack of transparency prevents salon professionals from getting the information they need to protect themselves and their clients from unsafe chemical exposures.  Introduced by Assemblymember Ash Kalra, AB 2775 requires manufacturers of professional cosmetic products sold in California to provide a full list of ingredients on products starting July 1, 2020, excluding fragrance and colorants.  BCPP co-sponsored California Assembly Bill 2775, introduced by Assemblymember Ash Kalra, along with Black Women for Wellness, the California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative, and Women’s Voices for the Earth.  The bill has broad based support from nearly 3 dozen leading NGOs including American Cancer Society Action Network, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, NRDC, Clean Water Action, and Consumer Federation of California. AB 2775 also has the support of various industry trade associations and a leading multinational cosmetics company including the Personal Care Products Council, the Professional Beauty Association, California Chamber of Commerce, and Unilever.

How Beauty Products Are Sold: Part One

Customers don’t know very much about how beauty retailers sell them products. The process by which a lipstick goes from factory to store to you is pretty opaque. Sure, we know conceptually that beauty has high margins and a big markup. But while newer brands like The Ordinary and Beauty Pie have started to offer a bit of transparency into pricing and how brands are ultimately made available to consumers, there is still a lot of mystery baked into the process.

The recent apparent shuttering of an indie beauty brand and its lawsuit against Sephora helps shed some light on how truly complex it is to sell beauty products — and the costs that get passed on to shoppers.

A few weeks ago, the beloved indie makeup brand Obsessive Compulsive Cosmetics (OCC) abruptly shuttered its website, its New York City store, and all its social media accounts. While the brand has not made any official statement and none of its third-party retailers like Nordstrom and Urban Outfitters have confirmed anything, it’s widely assumed that the brand has gone out of business. Founder David Klasfeld seems to have started a new Instagram account under the handle @dkwmakeup, and notes in the bio: “I founded and ran the world’s first 100% Vegan & Cruelty-Free Cosmetics line from 2004-2018.” (Racked has reached out again to OCC and will update if we hear back.)

If this is the case, what happened? The only person who knows for sure at this point is the founder of OCC, but a lawsuit with Sephora dating back to 2015, may provide some clues. It also sheds some light on things like who actually is responsible for building and filling the product testing fixtures you find in stores, what large markdowns mean for a brand, and how store exclusivity works.

There are two legal documents publicly accessible, one from 2015, first published by blogger Zadidoll, and one from 2016. These provide an incomplete record of the full proceedings, and it’s unclear if Sephora and OCC settled this case or what the final outcome was. But what is clear is that retailers hold a lot of the cards and OCC probably lost a lot of money. A representative for Sephora sent the following statement to Racked: “Per company policy, we do not comment on pending litigation.

The terms of a Sephora contract

According to the 2016 order, OCC and Sephora signed a contract in 2012 stating that the retailer would sell the brand’s products and that OCC would be 100 percent responsible for the costs of the fixtures, which is the system of shelving and pigeonholes where testers and products for sale are displayed in the store. They can vary in size from a small box on a shelf to an aisle-long behemoth. Per industry sources, this is a pretty common arrangement. (More on what those fixtures cost in a bit. Hint: a lot.)  OCC then alleged in the suit that it entered into a verbal agreement with Sephora to alter the original contract in two ways: first, that Sephora would become OCC’s exclusive brick-and-mortar retailer with the understanding that it would place enough orders to make up for the ones OCC would have to decline from other retailers. Second, Sephora was supposedly going to help defray the costs of the fixtures by contributing 50 percent, since it supposedly wanted to increase the number of stores selling OCC, which would then necessitate building more fixtures. OCC alleged in the suit that Sephora reneged on these oral agreements by not placing more orders and not helping to pay for fixtures. Sephora argued that it was a moot point because the original contract stipulated that the contract could only be modified in writing and therefore the suit should be thrown out.

However, the judge ruled that OCC could continue pursuing it, because he determined that OCC had acted in such a way (turning down orders from other retailers, for example) that made it seem clear that OCC relied on Sephora’s verbal statements. (He threw out a fraud allegation that OCC made about Sephora, however.) Sephora was given 20 days to serve an answer, but the conclusion or settlement does not appear to have been made public.

But that’s not the full story. An earlier 2015 order details exactly how much money OCC stood to lose in the Sephora deal. Sephora wrote a letter to OCC to terminate the deal in 2015, stating it would sell the products it had until a certain date, while also requesting OCC to fulfill two outstanding purchase orders that OCC hadn’t shipped yet. After the date in the termination letter, Sephora expected OCC to take back leftover product (this is called a return-to-vendor, or RTV, clause) and reimburse Sephora for the unsold product. The bottom line? Sephora said it expected to be reimbursed $832,700 for the unsold products. Otherwise, it allegedly said it would liquidate its remaining stock at fire-sale prices. OCC asked for a preliminary injunction, arguing that “if provisional relief is not granted it will suffer irreparable harm because an immediate mark down of the outstanding inventory would have financially devastating effects and moot any award of damages.” According to the lawsuit, OCC never reimbursed Sephora for remaining stock, and Sephora did end up marking down the remaining products and selling them off quickly, according to Revelist. Ultimately, OCC claimed damages of $521,647.20. This is where the paper trail ends.

PART TWO COMING NEXT WEEK

FDA Investigates Multi State Outbreak (Recall List)

The FDA is advising health professionals and consumers to avoid using products that have been recalled by Shadow Holdings dba Bocchi Laboratories as they might be contaminated with bacteria within the Burkholderia cepacia complex, also commonly called Bcc. The FDA is investigating whether other products manufactured by Shadow Holdings dba Bocchi Laboratories may be contaminated with Bcc and present a risk to consumers. The FDA is currently advising health professionals and consumers to avoid using products that have been recalled by Shadow Holdings dba Bocchi Laboratories, as these products may be contaminated with the bacteria Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc). The FDA is particularly concerned about potential contamination in recalled lots of Medline Remedy Essentials No-Rinse Cleansing Foam, since laboratory analysis by the FDA confirmed that samples of this product contained Bcc matches Bcc isolates collected from the Shadow Holdings dba Bocchi Laboratories facility and from ill persons. The matches were detected by pulsed field gel electrophoresis (PFGE), a type of DNA fingerprinting. Shadow Holdings dba Bocchi Laboratories has recalled other products made in the same location.

Current Recalls

Shadow Holdings DBA Bocchi Labs recalls Eufora BEAUTIFYING ELIXIR BODIFYING CONDITIONER, 1.7 oz. due to potential contamination with Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc.). FDA has confirmed the presence of the bacteria in some lots of foaming cleanser.

Shadow Holdings DBA Bocchi Labs recalls Eufora BEAUTIFYING ELIXIR BODIFYING CONDITIONER, 1.7 oz. due to potential contamination with Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc.). FDA has confirmed the presence of the bacteria in some lots of foaming cleanser.

Shadow Holdings DBA Bocchi Labs recalls Eufora NOURISH HYDRATING SHAMPOO, 8.45 oz. due to potential contamination with Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc.). FDA has confirmed the presence of the bacteria in some lots of foaming cleanser.

Shadow Holdings DBA Bocchi Labs recalls John Paul Mitchell NEURO REPAIR HEAT CONTROL BLOWOUT PRIMER, 0.85 oz. and 4.7 oz. due to potential contamination with Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc.). FDA has confirmed the presence of the bacteria in some lots of foaming cleanser.

Shadow Holdings DBA Bocchi Labs recalls John Paul Mitchell INVISIBLEWEAR MEMORY SHAPER, 8.5 oz. due to potential contamination with Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc.). FDA has confirmed the presence of the bacteria in some lots of foaming cleanser.

Shadow Holdings DBA Bocchi Labs recalls John Paul Mitchell SUPER SCULPT GLAZE, 8.5 oz. due to potential contamination with Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc.). FDA has confirmed the presence of the bacteria in some lots of foaming cleanser.

Shadow Holdings DBA Bocchi Labs recalls John Paul Mitchell NEURO LATHER HEAT CONTROL SHAMPOO, 9.2 oz. due to potential contamination with Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc.). FDA has confirmed the presence of the bacteria in some lots of foaming cleanser.

Shadow Holdings DBA Bocchi Labs recalls John Paul Mitchell NEURO LATHER HEAT CONTROL CONDITIONER, 9.2 oz. due to potential contamination with Burkholderia cepacia complex (Bcc.). FDA has confirmed the presence of the bacteria in some lots of foaming cleanser.

Shadow Holdings DBA Bocchi Labs recalls Medline Remedy Essentials No Rinse Foaming Cleanser: No Rinse Foam; CHG Compatible, pH balanced, Fragrance Free – for all ages 4oz (MSC092FBC04): 24 bottles/case; 8oz bottles (MSC092FBC08): 12 bottles/case; Ingredient: Water, TEA-Lauryl Sulfate, Aloe Barbadenis, Propylene Glycol, Sodium Lauryl Lacitylate, Iodopropronyl, Butylcarbamate, DMDM Hydanton Triethanolamine, Citric Acid. Manufactured for Medline Industries, Inc. Northfield, IL www.Medline.com; Item number MSC092FBC04; lots M06691, M07247 ; Item number MSC092FBC08; lots M05703 and M06691, due to  potential contamination with Burkholderia cepacia.

Avlon Industries, Inc recalls KeraCare Hydrating Detangling Shampoo—Sulfate-free, 8 oz., and gallons; 8 oz.-12 bottles/case; gallons-4 per case; UPC 9670838012, Item #53227; UPC: 9670833053, Item #53943 (Lot 16G1503 and Lot 16K3I03) due to the presence of Enterobacter cloacae.

The resources listed below are related to recalls of cosmetics and other products regulated by FDA, as well as other safety alerts related to cosmetics. To learn about FDA’s role in recalls of cosmetics, see FDA Recall Policy for Cosmetics.

 

My Short Time At A Ulta Salon.

Two months ago I applied to a position at ULTA to see how the company is organized and how it treats its employees. And when I say employees I mean Hairdressers. A position was offered to me as a hairdresser from the company. And I accepted the offer and did not know how much I was to be offered, but assuming in the beauty industry it would be a low commission.  I started the first week in April as a hairdresser. ULTA provides all the tools a hairdresser needs without including shears. Shears are a personnel choice of all hairdressers. All the tools used where given to all to use since the company sells these name brand tools. You can provide what you want as long as the tools are what is being sold in the store for retail purchases to consumers. A lot of video training is provided to the stylist and a lot is expected of the stylist. Such as how to greet customers and direct them to the proper aisle to find there product they are shopping for. Mind you if you have a client in your chair you are to politely leave your client to help the consumer in the store to find there hair care needs and answer questions to them.  Also if you have a client in your chair you are to politely leave your client to answer the phone and make appointments. Which I feel professionally that is not good, especially if they are a new or returning client. There are no receptionists in the salon, but there are plenty of sales people in the store to help you with makeup and “RING UP” YOUR PURCHASES.

On my second week at the salon a employee who I worked next to had to go ahead a pick up there child at school because she was sick. A makeup appointment was then moved from her schedule to mine. I have been doing makeup for about 10 years so I thought to myself no big deal. But when the client came in she had a appointment with a stylist who also does makeup and had a full consultation on what would be used and types of color for her private. She informed me that she wanted the stylist who she originally talked to at the consultation and not me. I tried to calm her down but to no avails she did not need my services and wanted to know why the stylist she talked to was not there. I had no information for her and she then turned around and walked away. Tried to do my best I told myself. Also to let you know I had a customer in my chair while attending to this client also. So for ten minutes I had to take away from the paying customer.

She walked away and moved over to the makeup counters and soon got her service completed from a sales attendant for her function. I went back to her and gave her a managers card and asked her to call the manager if she needed to speak to someone. I also went to a store manager to explain the situation to her from my side. All seemed well. No information from my manager was given to me about the consultation she initially had, and no information on makeup color choices. NOTHING. If YOU ARE GOING TO MOVE A CLIENT FROM ONE STYLIST TO ANOTHER GIVE THEM THE CLIENT INFORMATION FROM THERE CONSULTATION. So things will run smoothly. Photo’s also help from the consultation. Later that evening when I was leaving for home another store manager came to me asking what had happened. I thought to myself who is this person nor did I know she was a store manager. Thinking to myself she must be looking for gossip I said it was none of her business. She came to me and said the other employees said I was very rude to her and would not accommodate her. That is when I noticed to myself there are a lot of chiefs here than employee’s.  I respectfully denied to answer her comments and the following day told my manager the whole situation. Nothing was ever done on the situation. Yes the salon manager had there favorites in the salon as per the industry. So you where at times pretty much left alone in the salon to clean and make appointments and play receptionist. You were not allowed to sit in your salon chair and had to sit in the back if you needed to get off your feet. Everything had to be in clear plastic bags so they could inspect when you came and also when you left the salon. I was told the meaning for the tight security of personal effects was there was a employee who would place makeup in there sandwich and leave with it. That person was using that technique to steal. I had once told a sales person on the floor she had lovely makeup and she could not even understand English. She latter told my salon manager that I was making fun of her makeup and that I would be written up. If something again came up. This is after 3 weeks mind you.

There were a few nice people to work with in the salon and you also had your “QUEEN’S” there also. I refer the them as “QUEEN’S” because there are the one’s who will smile in your face and then take all the clients that walk in. When you take a break or leave the store during or after your shift you must go to the front of the store and empty your pockets and be searched by a manager on duty to make sure you are not stealing. And it doesn’t matter if the store is busy it will be done in front of the customers. The search’s were done in front of a camera in the front of the store .Very, very embarrassing. That tells you something about the business.  I was hired as a hairdresser which meant to mean the had a position to fill in the salon. I brought some of my own clients to the salon which kept me busy for a short time but as time went on there was less and less business. I was told it would get slower because of the season. The store itself was only open for a 10 month period and not yet a year. I was told to upscale my tickets as much as possible and seen some stylists charge as much as $250.00 for a simple foil highlight. I was also told to go outside the store and bring in clients or customers. Even if that meant to stand in front of “TARGET” and give out salon business cards. To me that told me everything.  They did not have the business and wanted “YOU” a professional to go out and pretty much beg people to come in for serviced.  If a customer was walking around in the store especially in the hair product department, I was to help them find what they wanted but also at the same time “TALK” them in a conditioning treatment. Saying the product they were looking for was not as good as what the salon uses. Which was untrue we used the same products from the floor in the salon. SNEAKY!

After being asked to give out business cards in front of “TARGET” I knew this was not the place to build a clientele. That pretty much told me they were deceitful from the start and lied about the position they had for me. They had no business at all. And wanted me to beg for business. This is a old technique in the beauty industry to place on a professional and ask them, ‘Well how are you going to build a clientele, Joseph”. I told them by my work I will build a clientele. ULTA is a large corporation that can afford to advertise for there stores. But would rather go the cheap way of using the employees to do all the clientele building. If you have no business in the salon why would they hire me.  FREE LABOR!

I get paid to do hair, hair coloring, makeup etc. Not to go out and beg and lie to people to come into the salon. If you don’t have the business don’t waste peoples time. All in all if you are looking for a career in the beauty industry, I would highly recommend not going to ULTA, for any employment.  Professionals spend a lot of time in there craft and need to be respected, but in this day and age corporate business have prostituted the  beauty industry.

SAME SHIT DIFFERENT DAY!