Category: Customer Service

Coty Changing The Definitions Of Beauty

~ Joseph Kellner

One of the world’s largest beauty companies with a portfolio of iconic brands across fragrance, color cosmetics, skin and body care, launches a new campaign to change the dictionary definitions of beauty. The #UndefineBeauty campaign recognizes that the current English language definitions of the term ‘beauty’ are outdated and no longer reflect the values of today’s society. Specifically, the examples cited under the current entries for ‘beauty’ across the leading English dictionaries are both limiting and exclusive.

Sue Y. Nabi, Coty’s CEO, has written an open letter to the major Dictionary houses, co-signed by the Company’s Executive Committee and Senior Leadership Team, highlighting the outdated nature of their definitions, and their need for review.

Sue Y. Nabi said, “Seen through the lens of today’s society and values, the definition of beauty hasn’t aged well. Of course, not all people are impacted by, or feel excluded by these definitions. But the implicit ageism and sexism in the examples were born in a different time. We believe it’s time to bridge the gap – time to bring the definition to where society is today. By changing the definition, if more people feel included – feel beautiful – there will be a ripple effect which touches us all.”

“At Coty, we believe that no one can control or dictate what is, or is not, beautiful,” said Sue Y. Nabi. That is why the campaign to #UndefineBeauty aims to ‘undefine’ rather than simply ‘redefine’ beauty, so that no one feels excluded by the definition or examples that accompany it. Founded in Paris in 1904, Coty is one of the world’s largest beauty companies with a portfolio of iconic brands across fragrance, color cosmetics, and skin and body care. Coty serves consumers around the world, selling prestige and mass market products in more than 130 countries and territories. Coty and our brands empower people to express themselves freely, creating their own visions of beauty; and we are committed to making a positive impact on the planet.

Exposure To Benzene Is Not Safe

~ Joseph Kellner

Two customers sued Pierre Fabre USA Inc., the maker of Klorane dry shampoo. The consumers claim that Klorane dry shampoo contains benzene, a carcinogen. The Klorane class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Two Illinois consumers claim that Klorane dry shampoo contains benzene, a human carcinogen. Plaintiffs Magdalena Bojko and Courtney Heeren claim they have each spent at least $40 on Klorane dry shampoo and purchased Klorane Dry Shampoo with Nettle and Klorane Dry Shampoo with Oat Milk. Allegedly, they relied on the labeling and advertisements of the products to make their purchasing decision. Bojko and Heeren claim that Pierre Fabre does not disclose the presence of benzene in its products so they purchased the dry shampoo believing it to be safe for use, according to the Klorane dry shampoo class action.

Bojko’s and Heeren’s claims that Klorane dry shampoo contains benzene are part of a concern that the carcinogen may be present in a range of aerosol dry shampoos. Valisure, an independent laboratory, petitioned the Food and Drug Administration to test various dry shampoos for benzene after discovering the presence of the chemical in some products, the Klorane benzene lawsuit states.

Benzene appears in the aerosol Klorane dry shampoo as a propellant, allowing the product to be aerosolized, the class action claims. Allegedly, benzene and other volatile propellants are derived from crude oil. 

While people come into contact with low levels of benzene in many contexts, the FDA has determined that no level of exposure to benzene is safe, the Korane benzene class action states. It claims that benzene exposure has been linked to the development of many types of cancers.  

Bojko and Heeren claim that when customers use the dry shampoo, they spray it very near their face in what is likely a closed environment, like a bathroom. This means they likely breathe in the product, according to the lawsuit. Bojko and Heeren also seek financial compensation for themselves and other consumers, claiming that they were financially injured by Pierre Fabre and the company’s failure to adequately inform consumers of the benzene in Klorane.

Magdalena Bojko and Courtney Heeren are represented by Gary Klinger, Nick Suciu III, Erin J. Ruben and Alex Honeycutt of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, Jeff Ostrow and Kristen Lake Cardoso of Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert and Max S. Roberts and Sarah N. Westcot of Bursor & Fisher PA.

L’Oreal Class Action Lawsuit: Shampoo Doesn’t Contain Keratin

~ Joseph Kellner

A L’Oreal class action lawsuit claims that the beauty giant’s shampoo and conditioner deceive customers into thinking they contain keratin.

According to plaintiff Tammy DeVane, the L’Oreal Paris EverSleek Sulfate Free Keratin Caring products are labeled, named, and advertised to trick reasonable customers.

The L’Oreal shampoo class action lawsuit claims that based on label representations, customers assume that the products contain keratin. However, the hair-nourishing ingredient is allegedly not present in the shampoo and conditioner. “Saying the products are ‘Keratin Caring’ when they contain no keratin, and repeating that representation with additional statements on the product labels and in a uniform advertising campaign, is unlawful,” DeVane claims. “Defendant’s mis-branding is intentional and renders the products less valuable, or even worthless.”

Keratin is a protein that naturally occurs in the hair, skin, and nails. The protein protects these parts of the body from damage and stress, creating a healthy, attractive appearance. Keratin is often used in hair care products due to its nourishing nature and many consumers look for keratin when purchasing shampoo and conditioner. L’Oreal allegedly takes advantage of the keratin reputation through marketing and advertising their “Keratin Caring” line in a deceptive way.

Product descriptions reportedly state that the Keratin Caring shampoo and conditioner “[care] for the essential protein and keratin that is found in hair.” These representations about the products’ keratin benefits are reportedly reflected in websites, promotional materials, and commercials. DeVane argues that L’Oreal heavily represents their products as containing keratin and that consumers trust the company’s advertisements. This reportedly results in consumers purchasing L’Oreal Keratin Caring shampoo and conditioner based on the belief that they contain keratin.

However, the L’Oreal class action states that because the products do not contain keratin, consumer purchases are proven to be worthless. DeVane claims that she and other customers would not have purchased the products if they had known that they didn’t contain keratin or would have paid less for the hair care products. “The absence of keratin and the failure of the EverSleek Keratin Caring Products to provide the claimed benefits of keratin leave no reason to purchase these products at all, since other proven and less­-expensive products exist,” the L’Oreal class action lawsuit states.

DeVane seeks to represent a Class of consumers who purchased L’Oreal EverSleek Keratin Care shampoo and conditioner. She also seeks to represent two sub classes of consumers from New York and Florida, respectively, who purchased EverSleek Keratin Care shampoo and conditioner. The L’Oreal class action lawsuit seeks actual damages, statutory damages, restitution, disgorgement, interest, court costs, and attorneys’ fees. DeVane and the proposed Class are represented by Taylor Bartlett and Caroline Hollingsworth of Heninger Garrison Davis LLC.

The L’Oreal Paris EverSleek Sulfate Free Keratin Caring Shampoo and Conditioner Class Action Lawsuit is DeVane v. L’Oreal USA Inc., Case No. 1:19­-cv­-04362, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Gorilla Glue Lady Is A Mess, No Common Sense

~ Joseph Kellner

Tessica Brown said she had run out of her usual hair spray one day and made the decision to use the Gorilla Glue spray in the interim. As Brown explained, weeks had passed at this point and her hair was still not able to move. “My hair, it don’t move. You hear what I’m telling you? It. Don’t. Move,” she said at the time. “… So I’m tell you like this: If you ever, ever run out of Göt2b Glued Spray, don’t ever use this. Unless you want your hair to be like that forever.”

Over the weekend, Tessica Brown said to her followers on instagram that she was paying a visit to the St. Bernard Parish Hospital in Louisiana. Brown said hospital staff attempted to use nail polish remover and saline water on her head, which caused a burning sensation. “It burned so bad my heart started beating too fast,” she recalled, noting that she ultimately chose to check herself out instead of going through with 20 hours of this attempted remedy. From there, the aim was to continue that treatment from home, though that’s apparently not resulted in progress so far.

She shared an update on Instagram confirming she “will be leaving tomorrow to go see a surgeon.” She thanked those sending her love and shrugged off folks making jokes about her. “I really do love and appreciate everybody I mean everybody that truly has my back.” Hair experts and medical professionals alike have all tried to come together over the last few days to try to find a viable solution for Brown. Some of their suggestions have included using rubbing alcohol and acetone to break down the glue, and Brown even made a trip to the ER. However, nothing so far has been able to help dissolve the adhesive.

Tessica Brown has hired an attorney and is said to be weighing potential legal options in connection with the adhesive spray incident. Per their report, Brown felt that the labeling on the product which is said to have mentioned not using it on eyes, skin, and clothes was misleading. The Gorilla Glue brand released a professional statement via Instagram on Feb. 8, sending their well wishes to Brown. However due to the nature of its product’s use, they were not able to provide any help. “We are very sorry to hear about the unfortunate incident that Miss Brown experienced using our Spray Adhesive on her hair,” the company captioned the post. “We are glad to see in her recent video that Miss Brown has received medical treatment from her local medical facility and wish her the best.”

Days after going viral for the incident, the Beverly Hills plastic surgeon who offered a free procedure (worth an estimated $12,500) to Tessica Brown made good on his promise. “She’s been through a lot and I hope that you guys will learn from Tessica’s injuries or Tessica’s ordeal,” Dr. Obeng said. “Make sure that any time you guys grab something, make sure you read it.” Brown is planning to fly California on Wednesday to start the process, according to the publication. And while the removal is estimated to cost around $12,500, Dr. Obeng is reportedly providing the service pro bono.

Ulta lays off corporate employees

~ Joseph Kellner

Ulta Beauty laid off employees at its corporate headquarters and among its field management team yesterday as it works to reshape itself amid the ongoing pandemic. Spokeswoman Eileen Ziesemer declined to comment on the number of employees that were laid off but confirmed their last day was Jan. 12.

“While incredibly difficult, these decisions were made thoughtfully with a focus on resetting our corporate cost structure to operate more effectively and efficiently in the short-term as well as optimizing our enterprise capabilities to thrive in the long-term,” Ziesemer said in an email. “The associates leaving Ulta Beauty were of course treated with respect, compassion and support.” The layoffs hit roles across all corporate functions of the Chicago-area-based beauty chain, Ziesemer said.

It also eliminated open roles and reorganized some teams. She said the move expanded certain positions and “introduced a small number” of roles in investment areas. Like many retailers, Ulta has faced struggles during the pandemic. It closed its stores for seven or eight weeks during the shutdowns last spring, closed 19 stores permanently in the third quarter, and has eliminated jobs.

Makeup in particular has been a tricky category during the pandemic. Without excuses to leave the house, many have forgone wearing makeup for months. There are some bright spots, such as above-the-mask eye makeup, and pampering items, such as candles and bath products, executives said on Ulta’s earnings call last month. The shutdowns also drove traffic online. Ulta has 1,262 stores in the U.S., Ziesemer says. The company was founded in 1990. The company most recently reported its employment count before the pandemic. As of last February, Ulta employed about 18,000 full-time and 26,000 part-time workers, according to a filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission from last March. Ziesemer said the total number of corporate associates laid off yesterday was a “meaningful, but relatively small number of our total associates.”