Tag: behindthechair.com

The Slow Political Destruction Of The Beauty Industry By The Greedy!

~ Joseph Kellner

California Licensed Estheticians & Consumers OPPOSE SB 296

We, your California Licensed Estheticians, Cosmetologists and California consumers, collectively OPPOSE SB 296, allowing nail techs to perform waxing services on their clients.  We do not oppose pursuing Continuing Education and we welcome anyone to join us by obtaining their license as an esthetician. We hold great concern for California consumers, our clients, and risks to public health that the passing of SB 296 will exacerbate.  The temptation of a quickie brow or other waxing service at the nail shop has caused traumatic injury to the consumers of California way too often. Consumers do not know that it is currently illegal for their nail tech to provide these services.

With the passing of this bill 130,000 licensed nail techs and those licensed while the bill is enacted and put into effect, potentially will be allowed to provide these services legally; without proper training and specific understanding of “how skin works”.In your Strategic Plan, you state that the “DCA protects and serves consumers in many ways, including…. Supporting and advocating for consumer interests BEFORE lawmakers. DCA staff review and analyze proposed legislation and regulations to ensure that consumers are protected.” 

The passing of this bill will only serve to VALIDATE THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITY and injury caused to consumers that 21 overwhelmed BBC inspectors have failed to “catch in the act” thus far. With respect and as your stakeholders AND consumers, we ask that you OPPOSE SB 296 for the greater good of California consumers and California licensees that work diligently to protect them.  

Who we are:
From California Aesthetic Alliance and California Estheticians • Esthetician Advocacy. We are grassroots California Licensed Estheticians and Cosmetologists, licensed by the Board of Barbering and Cosmetology as part of the California Department of Consumer Affairs.

Wendy A. Jacobs
California Licensed Esthetician
Founder, California Aesthetic Alliance

SIGN THE PETITION PLEASE.

LOreal Misleading Again!

~ Joseph Kellner

The Real Hair TruthSo Many hairdressers in my industry use LOreal hair color and there products. And so many don’t take the time to really find out that they are in competition with there manufacturer. Who will pledge allegiance too you and will send the “Best Snake Oil Salesman”, too you to inform you on the usage of there color and products that you can buy on the internet. You don’t really understand the how good these company’s are doing you wrong and also to the beauty industry.

Here is a good tidbit to chew on and to really think about how these company’s work behind the scenes to squeeze out every nickel and dime from there products. Advertising can be very misleading to the professional and to the consumer.  Go ahead and click on the link first for the complaint and read about the case filed in court.

November 2013: A federal judge denied final approval of a class-action lawsuit against L’Oréal USA, Inc. The complaint, originally filed in April 2013, alleged that the company misleadingly markets professional hair care products as only available for purchase in salons when the products are actually available for purchase in major retail outlets. According to the settlement terms, the company agreed to remove the misleading labels from the product packages for a period of five years. The Court rejected the settlement because (1) the salon-only purchasers and the retail outlet purchasers had different interests and so the class certification, a requirement for settlement, was inappropriate; and (2) the settlement was not fair, reasonable, and adequate because the company only agreed to stop the misleading labeling for a limited time and the class received no monetary award. (Richardson et al v. L’Oreal, Case No. 13-cv-00508, District of D. C.).

Misleading Information

 You the professional LEGALLY HAS the full liability of the products you use in the salon. You purchase them, you bought them, there yours. Once a product is purchased you have hold full liability. Take the time to know your salon products, color line, hair care line.  Know everything about the distributor, and also the manufacturer.  And of course in my Beauty Industry there are organizations such as the (PBA.com – Who says they are the legal eagle of the industry). (Behind The Chair – This is the Sears & Roebucks of the Beauty Industry), (Hair brained.com – Which basically is what it says it is Hair brained), (Salon Galaxy.com – Which is a copy cat of all the others mentioned). These sites could take the time to influence and to teach there subscribers but have taken the course of self advertising and stimulating there own agenda. So sad! there will come a day when the whole industry is controlled by one or two manufacturers and then don’t say I did not warn you!  Wake up sheeple!

Salon only products!

Don’t be hood winked.!!!!!!!

Joseph Kellner

Busted we win! Unilever for breach of warranty, violation of consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices pays up!

~ Joseph Kellner

realhairtruth.comI love it, I love it. Busted for whatever the lawyers could get, they got in full from Unilever!. According to documents filed Friday in Illinois federal court, Unilever United States Inc. has agreed to pay $10.2 million to settle a class action lawsuit accusing it of marketing and selling a Suave-brand hair treatment that causes significant hair loss.  The Suave Keratin class action lawsuit was initially filed in August 2012 on behalf of a class of consumers who purchased or used Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit, a product that was recalled in May 2012. The plaintiffs alleged that the product included dangerous ingredients that caused injuries, and that Unilever failed to properly inform consumers about the proper way to use the product to avoid injury.  During this time frame we at the “Real Hair Truth/Jotovi Designs Inc.” watched closely all the litigations that went forward with this class action lawsuit.  And passed along any and all emails we received from consumers to the appropriate law firms representing the clients involved.  Jotovi Designs Inc. was also used as a avenue for any and all complaints within the professional beauty industry, working hand in hand with consumers and professionals directing them to the proper law firms involved with the plaintiffs.  Now trust me my friends that is just penny’s to them not even nickels or dimes at all. They are a large corporation will it hurt them, “NO” not at all.  These large manufacturers are always in court. Look at L’Oreal, the mother of all lawsuits does it hurt them “No”. They always find a way to push the envelope, this is just a part of there corporate lives. No biggy to them.  The consumer and professional are the ones who get hurt. And trust me the so-called professional beauty industry does not care to inform there industry of these deviate practices. They will actually support these company’s. Basically because they need there money to survive. They cannot do it on there own.

On the Unilever website the company claims that. “Our brands play a major part in helping us achieve our sustainable living aims of helping more than a billion people improve their health and well-being; halving the environmental footprint of our products and sourcing 100% of our agricultural raw materials sustainably”.  Really?

Unilever is a major force in the beauty/cosmetics industry with household names as, Dove, Axe, Lux, Pond’s, Sunsilk, Tresemme, and who could also forget the beauty industry TONI&GUY that you can buy anywhere and beauty professionals will hail the product. Knowing full well they have no exclusive of the product what so ever. But they will sell it in there salons. And buy there tickets to there hair shows supporting TONI&GUY. But that’s another story in itself. The Suave Keratin class action lawsuit asserted claims against Unilever for breach of warranty, violation of consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices statutes and unjust enrichment arising from the manufacture, advertising and sale of the Suave Keratin Infusion smoothing kit. According to the plaintiffs’ motion supporting preliminary approval of the class action settlement, between 225,000 and 260,000 smoothing kits were sold.

Under the terms of the proposed Suave Keratin class action settlement, Unilever will pay $10 million to establish two settlement funds: a reimbursement fund and a personal injury fund. The $250,000 reimbursement fund will be available to Class Members who purchased a Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit, providing a $10 refund for the past purchase of the product.

The class action settlement injury fund will provide relief to Class Members who suffered bodily injuries to their hair or scalp as a result of using the Suave keratin treatment. Class Members who incurred expenses for hair treatment but who no longer have receipts for their expenditures will be eligible to receive up to $40 per claimant. Class Members who have receipts from their treatments will be eligible to receive up to $800 per claimant for their expenses. Class Members who suffered significant bodily injury to their hair or scalp will be eligible to receive up to $25,000 per claim.

real hair truth.comDuring the filming of my next documentary “The Beautiful Lies”, I received numerous emails for consumers who used this product. Writing to me the causes, and health hazards they experienced with this product.

” Dear Mr. Kellner, 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?”

” Dear Joseph Kellner,I found this email when reading about the horrible suave keratin product. I haven’t developed any health issues that I know of but my hair continues to fall out. I have had at least 10-12 inches cut off in the last 5-6 months and my hair used to be thick and is now just so thin and horrible feeling. Anything that can be done?”

“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 Sauvé’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.”

“I used this kit twice the first time my tightly curled hair was soft shiny the second time at first  I didn’t 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.”

“I to had a bad experience with this product. My hairdresser called their 1800 # to let them know the damage that their product had done to my hair. It’s taken 6 months to get it back to almost normal. This has cost me a lot of money. Another dissatisfied customer”.

“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?!”

“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 Kroger. 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.”

The Suave Keratin settlement will also resolve several similar class action lawsuits that were filed in Kentucky and California.

The Suave Keratin class action settlement agreement was reached after nearly 18 months of litigation and lengthy mediation sessions with former U.S. District Judge Wayne Andersen. According to the court documents, the plaintiffs believe that the settlement agreement is “fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Named Plaintiffs and the putative Settlement Class. Unilever, denying wrongdoing of any nature and without admitting liability, has agreed to the settlement terms in order to address claims brought by consumers of Unilever products, and in order to avoid the burdens of continuing discovery expenses and litigation.”

The plaintiffs are represented by Marvin A. Miller, Lori A. Fanning and Andrew Szot of Miller Law LLC; Peter Safirstein, Christopher S. Polaszek and Elizabeth S. Metcalf of Morgan & Morgan PC; and Jana Eisinger of Law Office of Jana Eisinger PLLC.

The Suave Keratin Infusion Class Action Lawsuit is Sidney Reid, et al. v. Unilever United States Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-06058, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Real Hair Truth Cosmetic/Beauty Product Injury Lawsuits

~ Joseph Kellner

the real hair truth

Injuries from cosmetic products can come in a wide variety of forms — from allergic reactions to infections and other complications. There are two main legal theories that a person injured by a cosmetic product (the plaintiff) could sue under: product liability and breach of warranty. This article discusses what a plaintiff in a cosmetic injury suit must prove under either theory, cases specifically related to allergic reactions, and the possibility of class action lawsuits.

Product Liability: The Basics

The most likely theory to be used in a lawsuit involving cosmetic product injuries is product liability. An injured plaintiff can sue both the manufacturer and/or the seller (the defendant) of the cosmetic product if his or her injury was caused by a defect, a defective design or improper labeling. Most states follow what is called the “strict product liability” rule, although a few still use traditional negligence rules.

A plaintiff suing under a strict liability theory simply needs to prove:

  • that he or she was the kind of consumer that the defendant intended to use the product
  • that the defect did not occur after the product was sold, and
  • that the plaintiff was injured.

This kind of theory is called “strict liability” because many of the requirements in a standard negligence case, like proof of a specific duty of care owed to the plaintiff, are not included. Most states adopted strict liability for mass-marketed consumer products because, among other things, the manufacturers needed to be financially responsible for their products, and not be allowed to escape liability simply because of the difficulty plaintiffs faced trying to prove negligence claims.

In a negligence case (in those few states that still use this theory for consumer products), the plaintiff will need to prove:

  • that he or she bought the product from the defendant
  • that the defendant should have known that the product could be dangerous if unaccompanied by proper warnings, or that the product had a defect
  • that the failure to warn the plaintiff, or the defect or defective design, injured the plaintiff, and
  • that the plaintiff didn’t do anything to cause the injury.

Breach of Warranty

A cosmetic product injury case based on a breach of warranty theory will be the same as other standard breach of warranty cases.

An injured plaintiff could sue for breach of an express warranty if the seller or manufacturer made specific guarantees that a product would have specific effects that the product did not have (note that this theory might not fit with most cases involving an actual injury).

The plaintiff could also sue for breach of an implied warranty that the cosmetic product was fit for normal use, i.e. the implied guarantee that no normal cosmetic product would cause an injury if used properly.

Finally, the plaintiff could sue for breach of an implied warranty that the product was fit for a specific purpose, i.e. that the defendant knew the plaintiff wanted to use the product for a specific purpose, but the product caused an injury when the plaintiff tried use it.

There are many state and federal laws controlling breach of warranty claims. Some breach of warranty claims may not be appropriate when the plaintiff is suing for physical injuries, if the law only allows compensation for the money lost on the product (what is called “economic damages”).

Some warranty laws, however, do allow a plaintiff to sue for physical injuries. Perhaps more importantly, proving a breach of warranty can help prove a strict liability or negligence claim. A plaintiff is not limited to suing under one theory, so including a breach of warranty claim in a cosmetic injury lawsuit will generally help a plaintiff’s case overall.

Injuries Caused by Allergies

If a manufacturer knows, or should know, that a product might cause an allergic reaction in some people, injured plaintiffs could potentially sue the manufacturer for failing to warn about the allergic reaction under a strict liability or negligence theory. A breach of warranty theory might also be possible if the allergic reaction is not extremely rare, i.e. the product was not fit for cosmetic use because some percentage of the population was allergic.

Class Actions for Cosmetic Product Injuries

If a cosmetic product causes many or all of its users the same kind of injury, then a class action may be possible. In a class action case, multiple plaintiffs with the same kind of injury from the same source sue the defendant in one lawsuit.

If someone is injured by a cosmetic product, they or their attorney should research whether there is already a class action case or a settlement fund for people injured by the product. Often, even though the case has settled, there will be a fund to pay those who were not a part of the original case.

Real Hair Truth what makes a cosmetic misbranded?

~ Joseph Kellner

The Beautiful Lies

The film “Beautiful Lies” release date will be in 2014

In our beautiful world cosmetics hold a strong life in the world of personnel beauty. According to the U.S Government this is a definition of what is “Misbranded”.  Realize my friends that in this day and age government is in everything you do, and with the past and current behavior of the U.S Government would you even take there word on just about anything. Politicians cannot even agree on anything anymore, there life span as a senator, congressman, house representative is for life. Your freedom of speech is going down the drain. So why would you take the word of the FDA. According to the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), its responsibilities include “protecting the public health by assuring that foods, cosmetics are safe, wholesome, sanitary and properly labeled.” This responsibility entails regulating a large number of companies producing this nation’s food, making appointments to the high-level positions within the agency very important.  Most high-level FDA employees have a background in either medicine or law, but one of the largest private-sector sources is the Monsanto Company. Over the past decades, at least seven high-ranking employees in the FDA have an employment history with the Monsanto Company.

Well aware of its accused ‘revolving door’ connection with the FDA and other government agencies, Monsanto has issued several press releases denying collusion with the government. In fact, it posted on its official website that collusion theories relating to these agencies, including the FDA, “ignore the simple truth that people regularly change jobs to find positions that match their experience, skills and interests.  ”

Monsanto’s statements help shed light on the balancing act regularly occurring on Capitol Hill when appointments to these top agency positions arise. The importance of the food, cosmetic industrys cannot be overstated and, therefore, the pending question remains: Do Americans want industry insiders regulating it, or those from the academic realm?

What makes a cosmetic misbranded?

Section 602 of the FD&C Act [21 U.S.C. 362] describes what causes a cosmetic to be considered misbranded:

“A cosmetic shall be deemed to be misbranded–

  • (a) If its labeling is false or misleading in any particular.
  • (b) If in package form unless it bears a label containing (1) the name and place of business of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor; and (2) an accurate statement of the quantity of the contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count: Provided, That under clause (2) of this paragraph reasonable variations shall be permitted, and exemptions as to small packages shall be established, by regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
  • (c) If any word, statement, or other information required by or under authority of this Act to appear on the label or labeling is not prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness (as compared with other words, statements, designs, or devices in the labeling) and in such terms as to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use.
  • (d) If its container is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading.
  • (e) If it is a color additive, unless its packaging and labeling are in conformity with such packaging and labeling requirements, applicable to such color additive, as may be contained in regulations issued under section 721. This paragraph shall not apply to packages of color additives which, with respect to their use for cosmetics, are marketed and intended for use only in or on hair dyes (as defined in the last sentence of section 601(a)).
  • (f) If its packaging or labeling is in violation of an applicable regulation issued pursuant to section 3 or 4 of the Poison Prevention Packaging Act of 1970.

Note that under the FD&C Act, the term “misbranding” applies to–

  • False or misleading information,*
  • Lack of required information,
  • Conspicuousness and readability of required information,
  • Misleading packaging,
  • Improper packaging and labeling of color additives, and
  • Deficiencies where the Poison Prevention Packaging Act requires special packaging.

*Note: According to the FD&C Act, a determination that labeling is “misleading” includes considering both what the label says and what it fails to reveal:

“If an article is alleged to be misbranded because the labeling or advertising is misleading, then in determining whether the labeling or advertising is misleading there shall be taken into account (among other things) not only representations made or suggested by statement, word, design, device, or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the labeling or advertising fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations or material with respect to consequences which may result from the use of the article to which the labeling or advertising relates under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling or advertising thereof or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual” (FD&C Act, sec. 201(n); 21 U.S.C. 321(n)].

In addition, a cosmetic marketed in violation of the FPLA or any regulations issued under its authority is considered misbranded within the meaning of the FD&C Act [15 U.S.C.1456(a)]. For cosmetics offered for sale as consumer commodities, the FPLA–

  • requires further label information, such as the product’s identity [15 U.S.C.1453], and
  • authorizes the implementation of regulations to specify the proper presentation of required label information, require an ingredient declaration, and prevent deceptive packaging [15 U.S.C.1454 (c)]

The FPLA defines a consumer commodity, as it applies to FDA-regulated products, as:

“any food, drug, device, or cosmetic (as those terms are defined by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act …, and any other article, product, or commodity of any kind or class which is customarily produced or distributed for sale through retail sales agencies or instrumentalities for consumption by individuals, or use by individuals for purposes of personal care or in the performance of services ordinarily rendered within the household, and which usually is consumed or expended in the course of such consumption or use.” [15 U.S.C.1459(a)]

Note that the FPLA defines a consumer commodity by the way it is marketed, not the way it is labeled. Labeling a product with words such as “For Professional Use Only” does not keep your product from being considered a consumer commodity under the FPLA.

Labeling regulations are very complex. Detailed information on cosmetic labeling is available in FDA’s Cosmetic Labeling Manual and the labeling regulations themselves [21 CFR 701].