Real Hair Truth – The lawsuits still keep coming to Unilever!

Fourteen women — including two from North Texas and one from Houston — are suing Unilever, the maker of a product they claim caused permanent damage to their hair. “It transforms frizzy, unmanageable hair into hair that’s sleeker and easier to style,” said the commercial for the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit, which is no longer being sold. Tonja Millet of Midlothian said the product did the opposite of what it promised. “It melted my hair,” she said. “The hair was sticky. I couldn’t comb it. It felt like sandpaper. It was just awful.”

Millet, 45, said her naturally straight hair would sometimes turn slightly frizzy in humid weather. So in February she decided to try the straightening product, hoping it would help tame frizz during a trip to the beach over spring break. “Instead of straightening and smoothing it, it acted like a perm and kinked it,” she said. “I just sat in the bathroom and cried. I didn’t know what to do. “Millet said she called the product’s consumer hotline to complain, and was told she probably used the product incorrectly. A few days later, she went to her salon, where her stylist told her her hair had been “chemically melted.” “So that day we cut off 10 inches,” Millet said.

When she began looking online for more information about the product, she said she found some people who said it worked, but more who said it damaged their hair. She discovered a Facebook page devoted to angry consumers, and there are multiple postings on YouTube. Millet is now part of a lawsuit filed against Unilever. Dallas attorney Amy Davis represents Millet and 13 other women. “What the complaint is alleging is that by using certain images and certain wording, that Unilever made consumers believe this was a product free of harsh chemicals, when we believe it wasn’t,” Davis said. “The complaint says women experienced hair loss to the point of visible bald spots, terrible breakage, discoloration… some of them had injury or burning to the scalp.”The complaint will not reach class action status, Davis said, because not all of the women experienced the same results.

Unilever said its practice is not to comment on ongoing litigation. But a spokesperson stressed that when Suave began to receive “a greater-than-expected number of complaints about the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit,”  the cmopany discontinued the product and recalled it from retail stores. That was in May.

“We found the number and degree of consumer complaints to be unacceptable,” a company spokeswoman said. But she stressed, “Overall, consumer complaints represented a small percentage of the product shipped into the marketplace. Many consumers enjoyed the product and had very positive results.” Millet said she’s cut 12 to 13 inches off her hair since trying the Suave product in February.

“At the beginning I was like, ‘I’m just gonna hide out for the next year so nobody will see my hair,'”  she said. “I certainly wish I’d never done it. I really regret it.” “It’s about accountability,” she said of the legal action. “They didn’t take it off the market for months, even after they knew there were hundreds —   possibly thousands — of women affected the way I was… or even far worse.”

If you may have had a similiar occurence with this product please feel free to email me at and let us know. We can help lead you to the proper officials and offer you hair care advice for your hair free of charge!  joseph@josephkellner.com

Real Hair Truth – L’Oreal Paris’s Pervasive and Misleading National Marketing Campaign

The search for the elusive waters of the “Fountain of Youth” has tempted those seeking to restore youth and beauty for ages. Indeed, as the story goes, in 1513, the great explorer Juan Ponce De Leon searched high and low for the “Fountain of Youth” – only to find Florida instead. In the 1800s, “snake oil” salesmen infamously ranged the West selling tonics that claimed to cure every ill, including signs of aging. Today, the search for a youth potion continues and, like modern-day snake oil salesmen. .

L’Oreal USA, Inc. and or and also including L’Oreal Paris Brand Division,  consumers’ fundamental fear of aging and their eternal hope that products exist that can eliminate the signs of aging and effectively turn back time. In fact, L’Oreal profits handsomely by making misleading claims that the L’Oreal Paris Youth Code line of wrinkle creams, specifically Youth Code Serum Intense, Youth Code Eye Cream, and Youth Code Day/Night Cream, (collectively “Youth Code” or “Youth Code Products”) have age-negating effects on human skin.

For example, among other affirmations, L’Oreal Paris specifically promises the following age-negating benefits of using Youth Code: Immediate wrinkle reduction, Skin’s natural regeneration powers are boosted, Breakthrough GenActiv Technology helps stimulate recovery, Boosts skin’s natural powers of regeneration, Skin regains the qualities of young skin, Lines and wrinkles are visibly reduced, Boosts cell turnover. 

 And L’Oreal promises consumers that Youth Code is able to provide such age-negating benefits because of L’Oreal’s claimed scientific breakthroughs and discovery including, but not limited to, the following:

After 10 years of research L’Oreal scientists unlock the code of skin’s youth by discovering a specific set of genes¹ that are responsible for skin’s natural powers of regeneration.

¹in-vivo study

An innovation derived from gene science

L’Oreal’s breakthrough GenActiv Technology™

²Patented in Germany, Spain, France, UK, Italy, and Japan; US Pat. Pending

5. Unfortunately, these claims (and the others detailed below) are false, deceptive, and misleading.

6. As explained more fully herein, L’Oreal Paris has made, and continues to make, deceptive and misleading claims and promises to consumers about the efficacy of Youth Code in a pervasive, nation-wide marketing scheme that confuses and misleads consumers about the true nature of the product. In reality, the Youth Code products do not live up to the claims made by L’Oreal Paris.

7. As a result, L’Oreal Paris’s marketing and advertising campaign is the same as that of the quintessential snake-oil salesman – L’Oreal Paris dupes consumers with false and misleading promises of results it knows it cannot deliver, and does so with one goal in mind – reaping enormous profits.

8. Indeed, the only reason a consumer would purchase Youth Code sold by L’Oreal Paris instead of lower-priced moisturizers, which are readily available, is to obtain the unique results that L’Oreal Paris promises. Upon information and belief, other, lower-priced brands contain substantially the same ingredients or provide substantially the same results as those touted by L’Oreal Paris – the only difference being the false and misleading efficacy claims made by L’Oreal Paris to deceive consumers into paying significantly more for their higher priced Youth Code.

9. A direct result of this pervasive and deceptive marketing campaign is that consumers across the country, including Plaintiffs and the proposed Class, International Patent²

²Patented in Germany, Spain, France, UK, Italy, and Japan; US Pat. Pending

5. Unfortunately, these claims (and the others detailed below) are false, deceptive, and misleading.

6. As explained more fully herein, L’Oreal Paris has made, and continues to make, deceptive and misleading claims and promises to consumers about the efficacy of Youth Code in a pervasive, nation-wide marketing scheme that confuses and misleads consumers about the true nature of the product. In reality, the Youth Code products do not live up to the claims made by L’Oreal Paris.

7. As a result, L’Oreal Paris’s marketing and advertising campaign is the same as that of the quintessential snake-oil salesman – L’Oreal Paris dupes consumers with false and misleading promises of results it knows it cannot deliver, and does so with one goal in mind – reaping enormous profits.

8. Indeed, the only reason a consumer would purchase Youth Code sold by L’Oreal Paris instead of lower-priced moisturizers, which are readily available, is to obtain the unique results that L’Oreal Paris promises. Upon information and belief, other, lower-priced brands contain substantially the same ingredients or provide substantially the same results as those touted by L’Oreal Paris – the only difference being the false and misleading efficacy claims made by L’Oreal Paris to deceive consumers into paying significantly more for their higher priced Youth Code. A direct result of this pervasive and deceptive marketing campaign is that consumers across the country, including Plaintiffs and the proposed Class,purchased skin-care products for higher prices that do not provide the results promised.

10. Moreover, because the Youth Code Products do not provide the promised results, Plaintiffs and the proposed Class did not receive what they paid for.

11. L’Oreal Paris’s deceptive statements about the efficacy of Youth Code are equally applicable to each of the Youth Code Products because those deceptive and misleading statements appear uniformly on all Youth Code product advertisements and packaging.

12. Plaintiffs seek relief in this action individually and as a class action on behalf of all purchasers in the United States of at least one of the Youth Code Products (“the Class”) at any time from the date of product launch to the present (the “Class Period”) for violation of consumer protections laws including Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Laws and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. § 58:8-1.

So basically they are suing Loreal for Deception. L’Oreal Paris’s pervasive false and misleading national marketing campaign includes the dissemination of deceptive advertising through a variety of mediums including, but not limited to, internet, television, and print media. Many of the same deceptive and misleading statements are also printed on the Youth Code product boxes. A central theme of L’Oreal Paris’s deceptive and misleading national marketing campaign, which permeates throughout its print, television and web-based advertisements and product literature, is that Youth Code, and the results promised by L’Oreal Paris, are the result of vigorous scientific research. In fact, while such claims of scientific research and discovery provide L’Oreal Paris with an increased level of credibility among unsuspecting consumers, and therefore increased sales, the scientific “discoveries” are simply part and parcel of L’Oreal Paris’s deceptive and misleading advertising campaign. Despite L’Oreal’s admission in its Code of Business Ethics (2007) that “overselling our products by making inflated or exaggerated claims for them is dishonest,” L’Oreal nonetheless turns a blind eye to its own policy for the sake of increased profits. By making specific promises regarding the efficacy of Youth Code, L’Oreal Paris’s advertising transcends the realm of mere puffery and becomes actionable as deceptive and misleading.

Regardless of where Plaintiffs and the Class purchased the Youth Code products (i.e., on-line, in a drugstore, or from third-party retailers), they were exposed to L’Oreal Paris’s pervasive, deceptive and misleading advertising messages and material omissions regarding the efficacy promises of Youth Code. Indeed, no reasonable consumer would purchase a $24.99 jar of wrinkle cream without some “knowledge” of what the product claims to do.

 L’Oreal Paris’s advertising and marketing for Youth Code is misleading in several ways. L’Oreal Paris claims that the Youth Code products are protected by an “INTERNATIONAL PATENT.” This patent claim is found on the product boxes themselves and is printed directly below the claim “YOUTH GENERATING DISCOVERY – Innovation derived from GENE Science.” The proximity of the patent claim to the “YOUTH GENERATING DISCOVERY” claim misleadingly conveys to consumers that the patent somehow involves the purported “10 years of research” leading to the “discover[y]” of a “specific set of genes.” However, upon information and belief, none of the actual patents listed on any of the Youth Code products relate to any such gene innovation or the discovery of a “specific set of genes that are responsible for the skin’s natural powers of regeneration.” Instead, upon information and belief, the patents identified on the Youth Code packaging relate to: “novel compounds having an improved power to moisturize skin and/or hair”; “a new family of thickening or gelling polymers making it possible to obtain stable thickened cosmetic and dermatological formulations”; “a novel family of thickening and/or gelling polymers which makes it possible to obtain a very large number of cosmetic and dermatological formulations which may contain supports of different nature”; and a “photostable cosmetic composition intended for protecting the skin against UV-radiation.” Falsely touting that its research has led to a discovery of a specific set of genes that is protected by patents is part and parcel of L’Oreal Paris’s deceptive scheme to convince consumers that its products will provide unique skin regeneration benefits based on the promised and patented “gene science” discovery and are therefore worth their price tag. L’Oreal Paris heavily markets its Youth Code in print media, including the placing of advertisements in such widely circulated magazines as Glamour, Vogue, and Vanity Fair, among others. L’Oreal Paris’s print media advertising contains the same false and deceptive claims as its other forms of advertising detailed herein. L’Oreal Paris touts the benefits of its skin-care products using models and celebrity spokespersons who claim to exemplify the results of the products. What L’Oreal Paris fails to disclose is that the images of the celebrities it uses are airbrushed, digitized, embellished, “Photo-shopped” or otherwise altered and, therefore, contrary to the claims made by Lancôme, cannot and do not illustrate the effectiveness of its products. In sum, the images used by L’Oreal Paris to sell Youth Code have nothing to do with the effectiveness of the products themselves.

 julia roberts lancome Fake images banned for misleading consumers.

Most recently, the National Advertising Division in the United States has taken a stance against the use of Photoshop in cosmetics advertising, noting that “advertising self-regulatory authorities recognize the need to avoid photoshopping in cosmetics advertisements where there is a clear exaggeration of potential product benefits.”

L’Oreal Paris uses statistics to mislead consumers into believing that the promised results are virtually guaranteed. For example, in the above print advertisement, L’Oreal Paris claims that “95% of women saw results.**” Any reasonable consumer would associate that claim with the foregoing specific efficacy promises that “One Drop instantly improves skin quality; One Week skin looks visibly younger; and One Month skin acts dramatically younger.*” However, in virtually unreadable, microscopically small print at the very bottom of the advertisement, L’Oreal Paris clarifies the results and promises. The single asterisk indicates that after use of the product for one month, “*Skin is firmer and cell renewal increases.” However, underneath that, L’Oreal Paris attempts to clarify that the results that 95% of women saw were not for firmer skin, cell renewal or visibly younger skin – but rather for “One or more of these benefits: feels restored, rested, smoothness.” This nonsensical (and nearly invisible) disclaimer has nothing to do with the claims that Youth Code makes as to its gene science, gene research and skin regenerating powers in the primary marketing message. Thus, the attempted disclaimer does nothing to cure the misleading nature of the use of the statistical “95%” claim. L’Oreal Paris’s false and misleading claims are the crux of its marketing campaign for Youth Code, therefore leading to increased sales and profits for L’Oreal Paris that it otherwise would not have enjoyed without resorting to such deception. L’Oreal Paris’s promises of specific results and scientific discoveries that enable such results cannot be defended as mere puffery. Indeed, L’Oreal admits in its 2011 annual report that the “close interaction between science and marketing . . . is a key advantage to L’Oreal’s innovation approach.” L’Oreal Paris relies on such a “close interaction” because it knows that consumers are more likely to believe its empty promises, and therefore more likely to purchase it products, when indicia of scientific research are present. To perpetuate its deceptive scheme, L’Oreal Paris has a short product cycle, releasing new products every couple of years based upon some new “research” or purported “scientific discovery.” L’Oreal Paris does so in order to falsely tout its new products via a re-imagined marketing campaign in order to keep driving sales and profits that would otherwise stagnate once consumers used the products and realized that they do not perform as promised. This scheme is evident by the fact that L’Oreal Paris discontinues sales and production of its older products once new products are introduced to the market, despite the fact that the claims made on the discontinued products are purportedly designed based on amazing scientific breakthroughs. For example, L’Oreal Paris discontinued its Wrinkle Defense product, for which it made the following promises: combats the emergence of new lines and surface wrinkles, reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles, skin-resiliency booster, L’Oreal Paris discontinued this product from the market despite its promised efficacy. L’Oreal Paris’s removal of the purportedly effective product, Wrinkle Defense, from the market demonstrates that L’Oreal Paris’s promised discoveries and benefits are illusory and nothing more than clever marketing. Basically they are always in court. Remember read the labels on your products everyone. If you cannot pronounce it don’t use it!

 

2nd Trailer for the film “Beautiful LieS”

Press Release for The Film “Beautiful LieS”
Beautiful LieS is being produced by Jotivi Designs, Inc, and will be released in December 2013. Beautiful LieS will encompass entrepreneurs, manufacture deception, ingredients, product labeling, deceptive labeling ,formulations, health and welfare, as well as uncovering what professionals are using in the salon and what is in salon/consumer products. In Beautiful LieS, we will hear from OSHA and FDA on the topics of health and welfare in beauty/cosmetic products.
“Beautiful Lies” will be completed by December 2013 and will be
available for Digital Download as well as DVD purchase.
This film was solely funded by Jotovi Designs Inc, and is not seeking any form of sponsorship.
And as of February 11, 2012 “Beautiful LieS Copy Writtent in this Website (including, without limitation, Text,Images, Software, Logos, Icons, Sounds Recordings. Films and HTML code) is owned or licensed by Jotovi Designs Inc. All editorial content and graphics on this site are protected by U.S. copyright and owned by Jotovi Designs Inc.

Johnson & Johnson reformulating products!

Manufacturing giant Johnson & Johnson says it is phasing out the use of a number of potentially harmful chemicals, including formaldehyde, in products made for adults by 2015. Formaldehyde and some other chemicals help fight bacteria and reduce the risk of irritation. Formaldehyde though, has been classified by the National Toxicology Program as a cancer-causing chemical.

In addition, J & J plans to phase out some ingredients in fragrances and an antibacterial substance used in soaps.
Many companies have long been under the gun to take action.  Consumer and environmental groups launched stepped-up safety campaigns against shampoo and cream makers in recent years. But Johnson & Johnson is being praised by former critics for responding to calls for change. “There’s a public discussion underway about the ingredients in beauty care products, and we think it’s important to be part of that,” said Susan Nettesheim, Vice President of Product Stewardship & Toxicology for Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.  “Consumers today expect more information and greater transparency than ever before and we’re always listening to the people who use our products.  On this site, we’ll do our best to explain how we make the choices we make, and to show how our plans incorporate consumers’ feedback.  We want all consumers to see for themselves how and why every one of our products can be used with peace of mind.”

SafetyandCareCommitment.com includes information about how ingredients are selected and evaluated, and provides details on our gold standard safety assurance process.  The site will evolve and be updated to incorporate consumer feedback, the latest science, new regulations and new information about our policies.  The site contains information about our approach to research, the extra care we put into the development of products for babies and toddlers, and our commitment to sustainability.

The Johnson & Johnson Family of Consumer Companies includes, among other divisions, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Products Company Division of Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., which markets the JOHNSON’S® baby, AVEENO®, RoC®, and CLEAN & CLEAR® brands, and Neutrogena Corporation, which markets the NEUTROGENA® brand.

We applaud the company for ther interest and transparency with there products.

Unilever’s Suave Product is still under Investigation!

 
Profile Picture
 
Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30 Day Smoothing Kit Unilever Trumbull. CT 06611. Actual Kit UPC 7940019562 Modular Display Unit Description and Case UPC : Suave SA Keratin Smoothing Kit 8PC PDQ 10079400228786 Suave Mixed Keratin 17 PC PDQ 10079400233025 Suave Keratin Kit 12PC Wing 10079400240221 SV SH CD Kit Keratin 12PC 15 Inch PDQ 10079400241372 Suave SH/CD/SA Keratin 258PC Bin 10079400244359 SV MB Naturals/Keratin 670 PC Pallet 10079400245790 Standard Case: SV Smoothing Kit (ATG) 12 1ct 10079700195620. Recall # F-1332-2012
CODE
All lots
RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER
Recalling Firm: Unilever United States, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, by letters dated May 8, 2012.
Manufacturer: Les Emballages Knowlton Inc., Knowlton, Canada. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.
REASON: Unilever has received numerous consumer complaints related to undesired hair treatment outcomes and potential consumer misunderstanding for Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30 Day Smoothing Kit.
VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE
381,288 Kits
DISTRIBUTION
Nationwide
 
Unilever is one of the world’s leading suppliers of fast moving consumer goods. Unilever markets the product under its wholly owned Suave brand name as a Keratin-based hair straightening product that is “an affordable at-home alternative” to professional salon treatments that’s “formaldehyde free.” However, Unilever may not be able to substantiate its claims. In addition, Unilever may have failed to inform consumers that the Product contains a chemical known as “Tetrasodium EDTA,” which is mainly synthesized from formaldehyde. Unilever also may have failed to inform consumers that the Product contains a chemical preservative known as “DMDM Hydantoin,” which is an antimicrobial formaldehyde releaser with the trade name Glydant. Formaldehyde has been classified as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and as a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

So when do we stop thinking of ourselves and start thinking and helping others. Where did simple kind compassion go in a world of give-me. Where did listening and  understanding one another’s problems leave our day-to-day life. When we know the truth and not say the truth that is the most common sin of all. .  Do you really care anymore.

 
I just used this product a few days ago and my hair is also fried. And when I went to the store to try to find a deep renewing conditioner the product was still on the shelf! I don’t know what to do with my hair at this point. I’ve been trying to nurse it back to life with coconut oil and mayonnaise but it still isn’t enough. Help?!
Sent from my iPhone
 
I too used this product and fried my hair…4 haircuts later still having issues with dry hair and itchy scalp. Any ideas on what I need to do to promote good hair health?
Thanks
 
Hello Mr. Kellner,
Help it has been 4 months for my hair and it continues to break off and is fried.  It seems like it is getting worse not better.  I have spent over $2000 and yet I am still struggling.  No one is responding to my letters Unilever, Suave or Kroeger. I tried to join a class action lawsuit with Wasserman, Comden, Casselman & Esensten but they have not contacted me back yet either.  The $12 is not sufficient and my current professional stylist believes it will be at least another year before my hair is back to normal if ever.  I can not afford this!!  
 Is there any hope we will get some resolve from the company.  Please someone help!! This is truly a nightmare and not only has it ruined my hair but my personal life, my professional life and my personal well-being have all been severely compromised.
Any information that you might have regarding where I might go next would be greatly appreciated.
Suzanne M. Light, Pharm.D.
 
I used this kit twice the first time my tightly curled hair was soft shiny the second time at first I didnt see any change in my then a couple of weeks after my hair started coming out by the handfuls it took me three years to get the growth I had now all Ivan do is cut it all off and do intensive conditioning treatments .something should be done to suave for the damage it has done to my hair.thank you
Sent from my iPhone
 
Hello Joseph,
My name is Dawn Rettew, a hairdresser/make-up artist, three-time salon owner.
I would like to thank you for your courage in addressing the issues of our profession.
Having been a “brainwashed sheep” myself, I understand most of what you are saying.
I would like to break into private labels and have attempted this in the past with no success. Mostly, I’m not able to know which companies to trust anymore and the up front cost is too high.
There are no products left that are not diverted. I especially like the way the product companies are not including “online discount drug stores” as diversion. To me, online sales are diversion. I’ve signed contracts with companies promising to do my part and now I can walk into any Target, TJ Max, most online outlets and purchase the very same products
At this point, I don’t even trust having my own private label for fear of losing even more credibility with clientele. They lie about the ingredients. etc. I’ve been made to be a liar one too many times. If you have any private label insight that you would be willing to share with me, I would greatly appreciate it. I’m just looking for a product line that is non-diverted, the best available ingredients at the best available prices without the deceptive practices that go along with them.
I appreciate you honesty,
Dawn Rettew
 
I bought the treatment on 3/23/12 from Wal-Mart and I used it a week later.  I have previously used Sally’s brand about 8 months prior so I knew what I was doing and I read the directions correctly.  Not even a week after I used the Suave brand, my hair got considerably lighter, which has never happened and my hair started to fall out.  Even now, every time I was my hair, more of it breaks and I am losing it by the handfuls.  I only use the treatments because after I had my daughter, my hair got wavy and thicker only in the back and I wanted an easier way to maintain my hair.  The treatment I used before worked wonders and seeing as Suave’s was a whole lot cheaper, I took a chance.  I know it is not supposed to make it straight, but it is supposed to make it easier to straighten, and this did not do as it was supposed to.  I saw the recall at my local CVS and wanted to know what I am supposed to do from here?  Thanks for your time.
Ashley Mier