Category: Consumer/Pro Retail
Great ideas on the Retail spectrum in our industry, common practices, quotes, and ideas.
Real Hair Truth Michael Gordon busted after IRS says he hid $29.6 Million!

The IRS doesn’t take haircuts as payment.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
The founder of Manhattan’s famed Bumble and bumble hair salons and product line has been busted for allegedly lying to tax investigators about $29.6 million he received after selling his stake in 2006, The Real Hair Truth has learned.
Michael Gordon, 61, of Manhattan, remains behind bars after allegedly telling an IRS investigator during a meeting last month that he didn’t know the income had to be reported on his 1040 tax return form. A federal warrant was issued and he was arrested and arraigned last Friday. The British native — who most recently produced a documentary on his late pal Vidal Sassoon that premiered last year at the Tribeca Film Festival and later partnered with fellow hair-salon owner Rodney Cutler of Cutler Salons — was deemed a flight risk by federal Judge Gary Brown and jailed. He sold his stake in Bumble and bumble to Estée Lauder in 2006 to pursue other interests and purchased homes in the Hamptons and Manhattan. But that financial jackpot has come back to haunt him six years later. The IRS has been conducting an investigation into his returns, and even used a confidential informant to build its case against him before last week’s arrest, according to court papers.
The canary — a friend of Gordon’s for roughly seven years — said Gordon openly discussed hiding the money from the taxman after securing the lucrative deal in 2006. The informant “told me that after the defendant received the income from the sale of Bumble and bumble, he was actively seeking ways to hide the money from the IRS, including sending money overseas, so that he would not have to pay taxes on that income,” a federal agent says in a criminal complaint. Instead of reporting the earnings, Gordon allegedly presented a gross income of $1,350,883 that year and a taxable income of $1,124,844. Instead of forking over hefty income tax on the $29.6 million, Gordon actually scored a refund of $39,298 in 2006, according to the complaint. Gordon submitted papers at his arraignment stating that he lived in a $16 million Manhattan apartment with a $3 million mortgage. Officially retired from wielding scissors, he listed his employer as his own company called, “If You Knew”, a hairstyling consulting firm made up of Bumble and Bumble alums. Cutler, who first worked at a Manhattan Bumble location and has called it the most influential salon in America, declined to comment. So sad for this Brit! BOO-HOO
Snake Oil Sellers of the Beauty Industry!
The definition of “Snake Oil” is as follows. Snake oil is intentionally promoted fraudulent or unproven Medicine. The expression is also applied metaphorically to any product with questionable or unverifiable quality or benefit. By extension, a snake oil salesman is someone who sells fraudulent goods or who is a fraud himself. These products and salesman are ever so abundant within my industry. The so-called Beauty Industry. Each and everyday the consumer and the licensed professional is bombarded with mislabeled, product deception on the new and best for your hair, body, skin. Products that will move the world and change the drugstore shelves forever and promise you the “Fountain of Youth”.

The above jpg of Loreal hair color “Natural Match”. Was a product that was advertised to the consumer as “Ammonia Free”. “Safe for all”, the cosmetic giant Loreal touted to the anointed one who purchased their product. In March of 2010, L’Oreal abruptly discontinued their popular and affordable non-ammonia hair color that was retailed for at home use which was heavily marketing under the brand Nature Match.

Interestingly, that is the same month they launched their INOA hair color. A quick comparison of the ingredients list for Nature Match Hair Color and INOA Hair Color will quickly reveal that the products have basically the same ingredients except for a single fragrance and conditioning agent. What’s the biggest difference between the two products? Nature Match retailed for about $3.99 per application and INOA Hair Color is sold to salon professionals for about $24 per application. Now here comes the slap on the hand, and “Did you know this”?
Now the ‘Snake Oil Salesman” will say and do anything to bombard the beauty industry with fake and deceptive advertising, telling all how wonderful their hair color is and their shampoo is and etc. Basically its all “Bullshit’ So don’t fall for this type of advertising when you are looking for a salon to have a hair color service done for you.
You will see salons advertise in methods you will believe! They have the best for you, and only their product will perform for you! And a lot of the company’s will “Throw each other under the bus”, spewing these lines of “Deception”. I found this line of Bullshit ob a web site for a salon, I could not stop laughing.
“Unlike many other hair color products, L’Oreal INOA is ammonia free, which means no more foul smell. The INOA permanent color line employs an odorless, itch-free “oil delivery system” which results in your hair being as soft and smooth as it was before the color was applied – an uncommon result with most typical ammonia-based hair colors. Although L’Oreal didn’t invent ammonia-free hair color, they absolutely perfected it, and believe in “Supreme Respect for the Hair”.
These are Snake Oil gimmicks, and that is all it is. Buy our product, get your service done here! And the beauty industry professional will be thoughtfully feed this train of thought, voluntarily may I say. You will also find Organic hair color lines in the “So-called industry that will write up pages, and pages of information about there competetor. “Its not SAFE”, you will also find “Ghost writers for haircare line and also for “Cosmetic industry Watchdogs” berating there competetors and adding links to there websites telling you how important it is to use there lines of haircolor or hair care! This is the “Art of Business” and this is the way it is and how it will always be!
- Uncompromised Comfort
- No ammonia. No odor
- Optimized scalp comfort
- Rapid self-emulsifying liquid
- Incredible smooth, velvety texture
- Exact and predictable color palette: True neutralizing cool shades, vibrant and luminous warm shades
- Exceptionally even colors from scalp to ends
- Coverage of up to 100% gray hair
Here is a link to a lawsuit, so tell me who is really the bad guy here!
The Real Hair Truth finds L’Oreal’s claims about INOA Hair Color to be false. What else would you expect from a major manufacturer giant! And also being “Shamefully attached” to a industry who’s main concern is to deceive you, I often wonder and ponder almost effortly why would’nt so-call industry websites like Behindthechair.com, and also Ted Gibson and also Jo Blackwell tell us the truth. Click on the links and your questions will be answered!
Joseph Kellner
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.

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!


You must be logged in to post a comment.