Category: Haircolor Advice

Haircolor advice from Joseph Kellner.

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.

Unilever Is In A Mess But Whats New

~ Joseph Kellner

According to the 49-page case, TRESemmé Keratin Hair Smoothing Shampoo and TRESemmé Keratin Smooth Color Shampoo, made by defendants Unilever United States, Inc. and Conopco, Inc., contain a preservative called DMDM hydantoin, which is known to leach formaldehyde when it comes into contact with water.

Uh Oh!

Given formaldehyde is a “well-known human carcinogen” that can cause cancer and other harmful reactions when absorbed into the skin, Unilever’s use of DMDM hydantoin in the TRESemmé Keratin Smooth products is “an entirely unnecessary risk” since safer and natural alternatives exist, the lawsuit argues.

Nevertheless, the suit alleges, the defendants have failed to properly warn consumers of the risks associated with using such a strong chemical on their hair and have even gone so far as to claim the TRESemmé Keratin Smooth products are safe.

“Defendants continued to conceal the dangers of the Products by failing to appropriately and fully recall the Products, by continuing to claim the Products were safe when properly applied, and by failing to warn consumers of the dangers attendant to the Products’ use,” the complaint scathes.

The lawsuit alleges Unilever marketed its “Keratin Smooth” line of shampoos to women who “wanted smooth, shiny, manageable hair with no frizz.” Through online marketing and the products’ labeling, the defendants allegedly represented that the TRESemmé products contained keratin, a protein found naturally in hair, and would “deeply nourish,” “gently cleanse,” and “repair hair.”

According to the case, however, Unilever failed to warn consumers that a preservative named among the products’ ingredients has been known by the defendants to cause or contribute to hair loss and scalp irritation. The suit charges that nowhere on the products’ packaging or in advertising did Unilever warn customers of the risks of using DMDM hydantoin on their hair and scalp and instead claimed the shampoo was safe when properly applied.

The lawsuit explains that DMDM hydantoin is a formaldehyde donor, which is a class of preservatives added to water-containing cosmetics to prevent the growth of microorganisms through the release of small amounts of formaldehyde. According to the case, the defendants until recently used the chemical in their TRESemmé Keratin Smooth line since keratin is a protein—i.e., a food for microbes—and has a limited shelf life.

Per the complaint, the use of formaldehyde donors, and particularly DMDM hydantoin, in cosmetic products has been linked to the development of allergies, dermatitis, hair loss and even cancer. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the suit says, considers DMDM hydantoin to be one of the top allergens “that cause the most allergic reactions from the use of cosmetic products,” especially since individuals can become more sensitive to the irritant over time. The case adds that irritation of the scalp is linked to hair brittleness and hair loss.

According to the suit, Unilever has known of the dangers associated with DMDM hydantoin for a decade or more given the chemical and several other ingredients were the subject of prior litigation against the company. Per the case, Unilever’s Suave Keratin Infusion product, which was advertised as formaldehyde-free, was recalled in 2012 following complaints of hair loss and scalp irritation. The lawsuit initiated against the company resulted in a $10.2 million settlement that was upheld by an appeals court in 2016, the suit says.

Though Unilever continued using DMDM hydantoin as a preservative and even publicly asserted that the chemical was safe for use in hair products, the company only recently reformulated its TRESemmé Keratin Smooth shampoos to replace DMDM hydantoin with other preservatives, the case avers.

Given the litigation against Unilever, not to mention the flood of consumer “horror stories,” some of which are cited in the lawsuit, the defendants should have been well aware of “the high potential for toxicity or allergic reaction” caused by use of the TRESemmé Keratin Smooth products, the lawsuit charges. Nevertheless, the company has allegedly “failed and continues to fail” to warn consumers about possible reactions and has even attempted to downplay or conceal the plethora of consumer complaints.

“Unilever continues to this day to advise consumers that these Products are safe to use as directed, without providing any disclosure concerning the complaints of hair loss and with no warnings regarding the hair loss that may result from their continued use,” the complaint reads. “Indeed, despite Unilever’s knowledge and awareness of hundreds if not thousands of complaints of significant hair loss and breakage caused by the Products, Unilever continues to claim the use of DMDM hydantoin it [sic] is safe and permits them to be sold to this day — without providing consumers with any revised warnings or disclosures.”

According to the suit, the defendants’ “reckless indifference” has allowed Unilever to realize “sizeable profits” at the expense of consumers.

This article was supplied by Class Action Claims.

Clean Beauty…or Dirty Business?

~ Joseph Kellner

The “clean” beauty movement is picking up steam. Health-conscious consumers are paying more attention to ingredients applied to their bodies and are looking for products made without harmful chemicals. In response to the demand, some popular cosmetics companies are now offering so-called, “clean” beauty lines. Companies considering joining this trend should take into account the substantial legal risks.

A look at the food industry’s use of the adjectives like “natural”, “clean”, “simple,” and “wholesome” illustrates the kinds of risks the beauty industry may face. When consumers began paying more attention to ingredients, companies began marketing their products with these health driven adjectives. However, this led to a barrage of class action lawsuits for false advertising under state consumer protection laws as plaintiffs lawyers argued that the claims made on the front of the label did not match the ingredients on the back of the label.

The food industry started to use the word “clean” after the use of “natural” resulted in a barrage of consumer lawsuits. As it turned out, however, the alternative claim also resulted in consumer class action lawsuits. The theory behind these suits is that “clean” is just a synonym of “all-natural” and signifies to consumers the absence of any synthetic chemicals. Similarly, it is argued that “wholesome” and “simple” are misleading consumers as to the real nutritional value of food products. This is at best an idiosyncratic view, not backed by legitimate consumer evidence. However, merely making the allegation is sometimes sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss, where the court must consider whether “no reasonable consumer” could share the plaintiff’s alleged interpretation.

Adding to the complexity is the difficulty of placing a sufficiently prominent and clear explanation, or definition, for such adjectives in an unavoidable location where the plaintiff cannot reasonably allege she failed to notice it. Courts have sometimes held that consumers need not be expected to turn around the bottle or package to read textual information on the back label before purchase.

We have seen false advertising claims creeping into the skincare industry as well, and this, coupled with the history of the food industry, should put the beauty industry on notice of the legal risks. For example, just last month, a lawsuit was filed in California State Court against the makers of Coppertone sunscreen. Prescott, et al. v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al., No. 5:20-cv-00102 (N.D. Cal. filed Jan. 3, 2020). The suit alleges that Coppertone deceived consumers by labeling certain sunscreens as “mineral-based” when in fact chemicals make up a significant portion of its active ingredients. The plaintiff’s theory is that the headline “mineral-based” claim suggests to consumers that the product protects skin from sun damage exclusively with minerals.

In the “all-or-nothing” world of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, any ingredient call-out or characterization creates legal peril by negative implication. If the label says “clean,” the product can contain no synthetic substances. If the label says “plant-based,” the product should not have any synthetic or animal components – even if trivial in amount. Plaintiffs are routinely sending products to labs for rote chromatographic analysis, and the tiniest detectable amounts of disfavored chemicals can trigger lawsuits. In California, the consumer protection laws include California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising law, and the Consumer Remedies Act. Companies making sales in California also need to be mindful of Proposition 65 which requires warning labels on products that contain any enumerated chemicals identified by the State to cause cancer, birth defects, or reproductive harm.

Since there are no regulations mandating the definition of such descriptive terms on cosmetic labels, these definitions (e.g., “clean”) can vary from company to company. The beauty industry should heed caution when using “clean” beauty claims. In order to avoid consumer confusion— and ultimately litigation— companies should define “clean” in a way that they can, and do, meet, and that definition should be available at the point of sale.

ClassAction.com filed a lawsuit against L’Oreal and Matrix

~ Joseph Kellner

Always in trouble they are, in a industry were you have manufacturing deception and price gouging. It come to me this is the same old same old crap in my industry.  I was once told when I entered in the beauty its a ‘whore’s business”, or the beauty shows are “flea markets”. That was the best advice and description I could have ever have gotten. And as time has past in my 30 years I see nothing has or will change in my industry. Shop to you drop are the ‘Beauty Shows”. It’s all soap my friends with maybe a little oils, or fragrance. That”s all it is.  So as usual the manufacturers will say anything advertising wise to make a sell to you as the consumer and as to me the professional. I never fall for it anymore.  It has been a very long time since I have been to a “hair show – flea market” that I have lost my respect for the manufacturers. Also they are filled with “snake -oil” salesmen and saleswomen to be correct.  Buy this and buy that will be the first impression from them, I once did a documentary called ‘The real Hair Truth” and we had a few snake oil sales men in it. These are people who will go from company to company selling there “speal” to them for a paycheck. And offering there devotion to them for a few nickels. Most of them do it because of a over sized ego. And most of them there work looks no better than a beauty school drop out. But the manufacturers will place anything on a bottle or label.  Its makes no difference to them if they get caught they will pay penny’s on the dollars in civil court. big Deal, no worry’s maybe they will say a batch of products did not have the “SECRET INGREDIENTS”. MERELY A TECHNICAL GLITCH WITH THE FACTORY MACHINERY.

In the latest case of a company allegedly promising ingredients and benefits its products do not offer or contain, last week ClassAction.com filed a false advertising lawsuit against L’Oreal USA and Matrix Essentials over an array of hair products that appear not to contain the protein keratin.

The products cited in the complaint are the following:

  • Matrix Biolage Keratindose Pro-Keratin + Silk Shampoo
  • Pro-Keratin + Silk Conditioner
  • Pro-Keratin Renewal Spray

The 39-page complaint—filed in the Southern District of New York on January 26, 2017—states:

Through its uniform, nationwide advertising campaign… Defendants have led consumers to believe that their Keratindose Products actually contain keratin and will confer the claimed benefits of keratin to the consumer.

In reality, the Keratindose Products do not contain any keratin at all and are incapable of providing the claimed benefits of keratin to the consumer.

The complaint states that the products’ labels are “false, deceptive and misleading, in violation of the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetics Act and its parallel state statutes, and almost every state warranty, consumer protection, and product labeling law throughout the United States.”

The plaintiffs seek relief for damages, for the defendants to stop engaging in the deceptive advertising alleged in the complaint, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

Click on the link to download the file to read. Loreal_Matrix_Keratin_Lawsuit(1)

I am not surprised at all with the lawsuit, but what is surprising to me in my industry we have this so called organization called the “PBA” PROFESSIONAL BEAUTY ASSOCIATION.  THEY DO NOT SAY A PEEP ABOUT ANY OF THESE LAWSUITS OR DO ANY INVESTIGATING AT ALL. BECAUSE THEY ARE IN BED WITH THE MANUFACTURERS.  They tought themselves as the watch dawg’s for the beauty business. Basically if you join them they charge you $300.00 for membership and give you a 10% discount on a hair show.  I call them the Professional bullshit association. They do nothing for the professional but they will sure do a lot for the manufacturers. And anything to do with Licensureship, anything that will hurt the manufacturers schools or state boards they will jump on in a minute. Because if they reported the truth about the industry they would lose manufacturers dollars. They use that to sustain themselves. With out that they would be history. Good day everyone.