Category: Consumer/Pro Retail

Great ideas on the Retail spectrum in our industry, common practices, quotes, and ideas.

Manufacturers finally getting there due in court!

~ Joseph Kellner

 

Three of the cosmetics industry’s biggest companies, Mary Kay, Avon, and Estee Lauder (and all the brands under them!) have been named in a class action lawsuit filed in California on behalf of American consumers. The lawsuit sites that these companies fraudulently claimed not to be doing animal testing when in fact they were, misleading the American public. Defendants later purported to disclose, at least on their websites, that they in fact were animal testing, but the disclosures were wholly inadequate and deceptive, the lawsuit states. As a result of their claims of no animal testing, Avon, Estee Lauder and Mary Kay gained and held onto a spot on the much coveted, “Do Not Test” list compiled by PETA. This list indicates which companies do not test products on live animals. Until recently, Estee Lauder, Avon and Mary Kay were among the largest mainstream corporations to be included on PETA’s cruelty-free lists. Specifically, the lawsuit states “As a result of being included on the list, as well as many similar lists, defendants enjoyed the support of PETA and millions of consumers who buy cosmetics only from companies that do not conduct animal testing.  And hence, the commercial success of defendants’ products during the class period was positively influenced by their direct representations regarding animal testing. Simply put, defendants reaped hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue from US consumers who otherwise would not have purchased defendants’ products. Filed in October, and entitled Marina Beltran et al. v. Avon Products Inc., Case No. 12-cv-02502, this amended class action lawsuit is the third filed against Avon, and has two new named plaintiffs that are alleging claims of fraud and violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The Plaintiffs allege that Avon is required to disclose its animal testing practices.

The “minerals” in Bare Minerals are a patented blend of 72 minerals (containing Mercury, Arsenic, and many more). Animal research is actually cited in the patent (held by Roger Blotsky and Leslie Blodgett). Fun fact: it’s also sold as a supplement for animals. Biokool is the company that produces it. Google away!

This lawsuit comes after the news in February that PETA was removing these companies from their cruelty free list. The reason that these companies were removed is they are sold in China. China requires cosmetics to be tested on animals, so there isn’t any way these companies could truly be cruelty free. The lawsuit seeks more than $100,000,000 in punitive and compensatory damages for a class of more than 1,000,000 consumers.

I hope this makes them wake up and pay attention!

I am actually really happy to hear about this. Whether or not you are a cruelty free beauty user exclusively, I like the idea of these corporations being held responsible. I hate that companies are able to get away with being vague about their practices, and maybe this lawsuit will help encourage other companies (okay, scare them) to be more transparent and forthcoming with information to consumers. Maybe it will also make them think twice about this whole thing, and flex their power and influence to get China’s animal testing policies changed. Cosmetics are a multi billion dollar industry. Surely there’s something someone can do?

US District Judge Cormac J. Carney ruled that the plaintiffs sufficiently pled their causes of action that Avon fraudulently concealed that it tests on animals.

I hope they win. How dare these companies lie to their consumers, THE ONES WHO PUT THEM IN BUSINESS. I wished I had known about this lawsuit & been able to be apart of it. I TOO had spent money on these companies with the impression that they were cruelty-free.

The technology is already out there to test cosmetic products without the use of animals. Usually these matters all come down to one thing: money. And that is why I hope the lawsuit not only goes forward, but that they win. You can’t teach a large company anything unless you hit them where they will feel it: their bottom line. Whether or not you are worried about animal testing, we simply cannot allow companies to lie to consumers, even by omission.

Avon lied to customers by claiming its products are cruelty free. For years, Defendants marketed and advertised their companies and their cosmetic products as not being tested on animals, when in fact Avon, Mary Kay, Estee Lauder were testing their cosmetic products on animals so that they could sell products in China and other foreign countries, thereby reaping hundreds of millions in sales.

Blog courtesy of The Gloss Managerie.com

GIB LLC, aka Brazilian Blowout Slapped on the hands by the Feds!

~ Joseph Kellner

 

Here is the settlement!!!!!  Of course in my beauty industry you wont see this in a trade magazine, or posted by the any so-called industry website! Because it’s all about money. Advertising dollars are what sustain beauty industry publications, and independently owned websites. Behindthechair.com is owned by Loreal, and Hairbrained.me is an independently owned website. Advertising dollars are what sustain these entity’s. Modern Salon is owned by Vance Publishing Corp, and it goes on and on. Why would they write anything negative or truthful about the industry when they can potentially get the money from a manufacturer to have them buy future advertisement in their magazines or websites. It’s not about protecting you as a professional or informing you in a neutral way. It’s all about the coporate dollar, Not your health! The professional beauty industry preys on the non-educated, just like the cosmetic industry preys on the non-educated consumer.

The settlement requires GIB, LLC, which does business under the name Brazilian Blowout, to cease deceptive advertising that describes two of its popular products as formaldehyde-free and safe. The company must also make significant changes to its website and pay $600,000 in fees, penalties and costs.

“California laws protect consumers and workers and give them fair notice about the health risks associated with the products they use,” said Attorney General Harris. “This settlement requires the company to disclose any hazard so that Californians can make more informed decisions.”

Today’s settlement is the first government enforceable action in the United States to address the exposures to formaldehyde gas associated with Brazilian Blowout products. It is also the first law enforcement action under California’s Safe Cosmetics Act, a right-to-know law enacted in 2005.

In November 2010, the Attorney General’s office filed suit against GIB, LLC for violating five state laws, including deceptive advertising and failure to provide consumers with warnings about the presence of a carcinogen in its products.

The settlement covers two products used in a popular salon hair straightening process, the “Brazilian Blowout Acai Smoothing Solution” and the “Brazilian Blowout Professional Smoothing Solution”.

The complaint alleged the two products contained formaldehyde but were labeled “formaldehyde free.”
Proposition 65 requires businesses to notify Californians about certain exposures to chemicals in the products they purchase. Formaldehyde is on the Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer.

The complaint alleged that that GIB – the manufacturer of the Brazilian Blowout products – did not inform customers or workers that formaldehyde gas was being released during a Brazilian Blowout treatment, and therefore product users did not take steps to reduce their exposure, such as increasing ventilation. Under the terms of the settlement, GIB is required to:

– Produce a complete and accurate safety information sheet on the two products that includes a Proposition 65 cancer warning; distribute this information to recent product purchasers who may still have product on hand; and distribute it with all future product shipments. The revised safety information sheet — known as a “Material Safety Data Sheet,” or MSDS — will be posted on the company’s web site.

– Affix “CAUTION” stickers to the bottles of the two products to inform stylists of the emission of formaldehyde gas and the need for precautionary measures, including adequate ventilation.

– Cease deceptive advertising of the products as formaldehyde-free and safe; engage in substantial corrective advertising, including honest communications to sales staff regarding product risks; and change numerous aspects of Brazilian Blowout’s web site content.

– Retest the two products for total smog-forming chemicals (volatile organic compounds) at two Department of Justice-approved laboratories, and work with DOJ and the Air Resources Board to ensure that those products comply with state air quality regulations.

– Report the presence of formaldehyde in its products to the Safe Cosmetics Program at the Department of Public Health.

– Disclose refund policies to consumers before the products are purchased.

– Require proof of professional licensing before selling “salon use only” products to stylists.

GIB will also pay $300,000 in Proposition 65 civil penalties, and $300,000 to reimburse the Attorney General’s office fees and costs.

Beware of Labeling, Repackaging of Beauty/Cosmetic Products

~ Joseph Kellner

The Real Hair Truth!

Across the gamut of media formats – from television to the Internet to print – beauty product advertising bombards consumers on a daily basis. Each ad seeks to persuade potential buyers of the product’s value, or even its necessity for the buyer’s well-being and self-image. These techniques, sometimes manipulative in nature, affect more than the consumer’s wallet. It can effect their health. In my industry if a product is not selling to the so-called professionals they will repackage the product. And sell under a new gimmick. Here is a lawsuit placed in a Florida court against Loreal. Read the print very closely. I just love to see when a customer takes a major beauty/cosmetic bully to court. Especially if it is Loreal!

Morelli Ratner Files Class Action Against L’Oreal for Defrauding Consumers

Morelli Ratner PC, together with the Alters Law Firm, filed a class action last week against L’Oreal and Lancôme for defrauding consumers. The case is Nino v. L’Oreal USA, Inc. et al, and was filed in federal court, in the Southern District of Florida. The complaint alleges that the Defendants have advertised their “anti-aging” creams as having been scientifically tested, making claims and promising results to consumers that the Defendants know to be unfounded. Earlier this month, the Food and Drug Administration sent Lancôme a formal warning letter about the misleading advertising. The complaint alleges that L’Oreal has made millions of dollars by knowlingly and willfully misleading consumers. Plaintiff Costanza Nino, a resident of Florida, is bringing the suit on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of all persons who purchased Lancôme’s “Anti-Aging” products within the applicable statutory limitations period, and a Subclass of Florida residents.

 Read more on this Loreal Lawsuit! 

Real Hair Truth Advice on the Cosmetic Industry

~ Joseph Kellner

The Real Hair Truth

In my next Documentary “Beautiful LieS”, I have interviewed so many Beauty salon employees, booth renters etc to make sure they know there products they use are legitimate. So many company’s will use deceptive labeling/marketing on their products. And if you do not take the time to investigate what are the ingredients in the products you are responsible for any issues that may arise during a service to your client. Yes once you buy a product from a manufacturer and a distributor you own that product. If something happens during the application and process of the product “YOU BOUGHT IT, NOW YOU OWN IT”. You cannot sue the manufacturer, they are not liable legally to any problems due to application and processing of the product! Especially if you are an independent contractor, make sure you have at least 2-3 millions dollars in insurance to cover yourself in the salon.  Watch your back my friends. I had a sale person come to my studio las week. He was selling a Keratin Product called, Bionaza little did he know I new alot about the company. I have cameras in my salon so I went ahead and switch them on. I asked the gentleman some questions about the product, and of course he promised the stars to me. And the product will split the oceans and the heavens and make my clients hair ever so dreamy. He also told me he was selling the product from a friend and this Bionaza was not from his distributor. He didn’t even have any directions on the product. And when I confronted him on how easy it is to buy the so-called “SALON PRODUCT” on the internet he quickly turned heels. Watch out for “SNAKE OIL SALESMEN”, my friends! Especially the lone wolf types, they will sell you anything, but will hastily throw you under the bus if the product does not do what it says it will do. This should be a good filmed clip for my Documentary.

SCUM OF THE BEAUTY INDUSTRY! Be Aware My Friends

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration today announced four new OSHA Training Institute (OTI) Education Centers and the renewal of 24 existing OTI Education Centers. Current OTI Education Centers offer training courses on OSHA standards and occupational safety and health issues. The new OTI Education Centers, which are non-profit organizations, will provide additional outlets for safety and health training to workers and employers throughout the country.

“This year, we have seen record numbers of requests for occupational safety and health training from the private sector and federal agency personnel,” said Dr. David Michaels, assistant secretary of labor for occupational safety and health. “The renewal of OTI’s Education Centers and the addition of four new centers will help OSHA to meet this demand and deliver life-saving training to our country’s employers and workers.”

The OTI Education Centers program was created in 1992 to complement the OSHA Training Institute in Arlington Heights, Ill., which provides training and education to OSHA compliance officers. The OTI Education Centers provide training nationwide to private sector and federal personnel from agencies outside OSHA. The OTI Education Centers trained more than 40,000 people during the 2012 fiscal year, representing an all-time record for the program.

The OTI Education Centers also assist the agency in administering the OSHA Outreach Training Program and fulfilling the program’s monitoring requirements. OTI Education Centers are the principal distribution channel for Outreach Training Program trainer courses, including prerequisite and update courses. Trainer courses are offered by topic areas including construction, general industry, disaster site and maritime. Through these train-the-trainer programs, qualified individuals who complete a one-week OSHA trainer course are authorized to teach 10-hour or 30-hour courses focusing on safety and health hazards. Through the Outreach Training Program, more than two million people received training from fiscal 2010 through fiscal 2012. This is a voluntary program and does not meet training requirements for any OSHA standards.

The new OTI Education Centers were selected through a national competition announced on April 13, 2012, and published in the Federal register on April 15. Applicant organizations were evaluated based on organizational experience, staff experience, location and training facilities, marketing and recruitment, administrative capabilities, evaluation, and the ability to provide training throughout a given region. OSHA provides no funding to the OTI Education Centers. The OTI Education Centers support their OSHA training through their established tuition and fee structures and provide their own instructors and facilities. For more information on the OTI Education Centers Program, the Outreach Training Program, and the Directorate of Training and Education.

For information on the geographic areas served by OSHA’s Regional Offices, visit http://www.osha.gov/html/RAmap.html.

IMPORTANT NOTE! Make sure that when you are working in your salon that the owner or company adheres to the policy’s standards OSHA has mandated for your safety.

Your health is very important!

You may file a complaint to have OSHA inspect their workplace if they believe that your employer is not following OSHA standards or that there are serious hazards. Employees can file a complaint with OSHA by calling 1-800-321-OSHA (6742) or by printing the complaint form and mailing or faxing to your local OSHA area office. Complaints that are signed by an employee are more likely to result in an inspection.

California Superior Court Gives Brazilian Blowout 30 Days to Reformulate or Remove Products from Marketplace

~ Joseph Kellner

Los Angeles—The California Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, issued an order on November 29, 2012 requiring the manufacturers of Brazilian Blowout hair straightening solution, GIB, LLC (GIB) to stop selling its product in California within 30 days and prove that its new, reformulated product meets California Air Quality Standards. According to the attorney general’s court papers, testing by three different laboratories shows that GIB’s hair straightening product violates California air quality law and emits smog-forming pollutants at levels higher than allowed by the California Air Resources Board. Formaldehyde, a human carcinogen, is a major ingredient in Brazilian Blowout.

“The move to pull the original Brazilian Blowout formula from the market is a victory for women’s health,” said Alexandra Scranton, on behalf of the National Healthy Nail and Beauty Salon Alliance. “Brazilian Blowout continues to expose salon workers to cancer-causing chemicals and it clearly violates California’s air pollution standards.”

In a previous settlement agreement with California Attorney General Kamala Harris’s office, GIB agreed to stop deceptively advertising the product as formaldehyde-free and put caution stickers on their product advising users that it releases carcinogenic formaldehyde gas. The company also agreed to participate in further testing to evaluate whether its Brazilian Blowout product violated California air quality laws and reformulate its product if it were found in violation.

Three independent laboratory tests showed that Brazilian Blowout releases high levels of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) and in violation of its previous agreement with the State of California, GIB had refused to either reformulate Brazilian Blowout or remove it from the marketplace. Following that refusal, the California Attorney General’s Office asked the California Superior Court to remove Brazilian Blowout from the market on October 9, 2012.

According to the California Air Resources Board, VOCs are an important component in the formation of ground level ozone, a major part of California’s smog problem. The Board’s air quality standards require that Brazilian Blowout contain no more than six percent VOCs by weight. Testing by two independent labs approved by the company, and testing by the Board, found Brazilian Blowout contained between 8.1 percent and 11.49 percent of regulated VOCs by weight.

“We applaud the attorney general for vigorously pursuing an action against this manufacturer who evidently believes it can ignore the law without repercussion. A cosmetic product should never contain formaldehyde, a known carcinogen and respiratory irritant. It’s reassuring that the original formula of Brazilian Blowout, due to violating air quality laws, will no longer be around to harm consumers and hair salon workers in California,” said Catherine Porter with the National Healthy Nail and Beauty Salon Alliance.

Stylists who regularly perform Brazilian Blowout treatments are exposed to formaldehyde gas at levels well in excess of the state’s Proposition 65 warning threshold, according to the California AG’s lawsuit.

“As a hairstylist that has been seriously affected by Brazilian Blowout, I know firsthand just how dangerous this product is. Getting the original Brazilian Blowout formula off the shelves will be a big win for salon workers who have suffered irreparable health problems due to exposure to this product,” said California salon worker Jennifer Arce.

According to the California Attorney General’s office, the California Air Resources Board will test the reformulation of Brazilian Blowout by December 15 to ensure the product meets the VOC limit of six percent.

Brazilian Blowout has been banned in Canada and at least four other countries, including Germany, France, Ireland and Australia, but is still allowed to be sold in the U.S. The federal Safe Cosmetics Act, introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives in July 2011 by Reps. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.) would ban chemicals known to cause cancer from cosmetics, as many other countries have already done.

“This dangerous product never should have been on the market to begin with,” said Janet Nudelman on behalf of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. “But because of lax U.S. regulation, countless stylists and salon patrons have been exposed to harmful levels of formaldehyde.  Unfortunately, Brazilian Blowout is just one of many examples of why Congress needs to pass the Safe Cosmetics Act.”