Wonderful Reviews For The Film, The Beautiful LieS

I am proud to announce the completion of my newest film, The Beautiful Lies. “The Beautiful Lies” is a film that shines a revealing light on the cosmetic and beauty industry. It showcases the passion of entrepreneurs in the beauty/cosmetic industry. Dominated by major manufacturers. From there ups and downs, peaks and valleys this film will motivate you as a entrepreneur in any profession. Motivational and a realistic film. You can buy it at https://haircolorinorlando.com/beautiful-lies/

Reviews For the film.

Lisa O’Connor Boss ♡♡♡ watched it in its entirety and you have the ability to inspire all! I found it motivational with a message that truly does need to be understood. Thank you Joseph and to all involved in your documentary.

Michele E Magnuson You are awesome for helping those less fortunate, for always giving and caring. I plan to watch this afternoon. Love that you shared it with us.

Great documentary Joseph!! It was very informative, educational and inspiring about Entrepreneurship, marketing and the beauty business. I highly recommend it even if you aren’t working in the hair industry.

Lori Leonard Prescott Thank you Joseph Edward Kellner for inspiring me. You helped me so much.

Terrie A Simpkins Wonderful and inspiring .I enjoyed it very much and will use the positive messages and insight to implement into my own business. You’re a Gem Joseph. So happy for you.  Love your work.  Continued success and endless happiness always!

Lora Boyer I watched this am…so thankful that your God given talent is to help and inform in beauty industry!  I’ve been in industry for 25 years…it’s hard work but I love what I do and believe God bless me with talent to help and make others feel better 😊I will pray for success for this project and for u…thank u for the opportunity to watch!!!  Respect all the great advice and great to see J Christian…God bless.

Cynthia Oakley I am not in the beauty industry, I sit in the chair and watch the magic..  I absolutely loved it.  The message can be applied to all industries and personal life.  Great job.. I really liked the visuals, especially while you gave your commentary under the trees.  Your filled with the spirit my friend.  BRAVO

LOreal Misleading Again!

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

THE SMARTPHONE OF HAIRCOLOR IS HERE….COURTESY OF B’ORÉAL OF PARIS.

THE REAL HAIR TRUTH.COM

I often wonder why salon owners and booth renters will buy from B’Oreal, WHY? But as soon as I think about it hairdressers are not left brain and right brained at the same time. Business is not taught in beauty schools. And if there is a business class in the hair shows it is to dump on one brand and try to sell you there’s.

So who do you want to partner with, the company that teaches consumers that they can do your job & discredits you or the ones that support the professional hairdresser? And the professional(?) Hairdresser will buy from companies such as Boreal, Paul Mitchell, Redken, TIGI, etc. knowing they do not have a EXCLUSIVE with the company. Because they are in competition with the manufacturer. The manufacturer will make a cosmetic line for the consumer and also for the professional(?). Trust me in other professions a true professional would not do this stupid mistake.
THE SMARTPHONE OF HAIRCOLOR IS HERE….COURTESY OF B’ORÉAL of PARIS.
L’Oreal Paris Mousse Absolue
At-home hair dye always seems like a fine idea until you find yourself trying to mix several different foul-smelling chemicals in the right ratio while unfolding a manual the size of a roadmap for planet Earth. But, though it may be less than ideal, for many women, an expensive hours-long trip to the salon isn’t an option anymore.
It’s something that’s been in the works for over a decade, according to Luc Maelstaf, packaging designer for B’Oreal of Paris. “Everybody always dreams of a product where you push a button and a machine does the work for you,” he says. “This device does just that: It makes the hair color mix without the consumer even noticing that it’s happening.”

Maelstaf says that B’Oreal of Paris used Japanese technology to develop the packaging of the product, which is what makes the automatic, reusable qualities possible. Two separate aerosol cans are held together in a sleek plastic sleeve. One can contains the colorant; the other, the oxidant. “The reaction to create hair color only happens when you have a mix of those two things,” says Sophie Bodelin, the head of hair color labs for the France headquarters of B’Oréal of Paris. “But now you don’t have to mix it yourself. The mix is complete as soon as the product comes out of the bottle.”

But in my industry they will buy the products from Boreal and use them in there salon. And what you have to listen to now is when the customer asks you what are you using on there hair. They will ask you. And then go home and find it on the internet. Thank you internet you gave the manufacturers a ndew3 way to sell there products. And that goes like wise for the entrepreneur. A entrepreneur will have a lot of hard times in the beauty industry. Manufacturing a beauty product is not easy and it takes money from start to finish to packing. What’s left for the beauty industry entrepreneur. The internet. Cosmetics company’s have never dreamed there sales would sky rocket like they have since the birth of the internet.
So for the Entrepreneur. 
 IT’S SIMPLE AND THEY HAVE SEEN THE MAJOR MANUFACTURERS DO IT SO THEY ARE ALREADY SCHOOLED on the vast uses of the internet. And also IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF NO VALUE AND NO EXCLUSIVE FOR THERE FELLOWS IN THE INDUSTRY. That would be too much to ask for especially in day and age when EX-Monsanto employee’s run the FDA.  Why go door to door anymore to sell your product. Don’t put a face on it, don’t take any responsibility for it. When you can just plant your packaged (Soap) on the internet. And dear Lord don’t get to know your customers, because they will soon find out your product is just a private label just like the many entrepreneurs have in the beauty industry. I have a gentleman in my next film “The Beautiful Lies” who sells hair color. Since I have used his hair color I get nothing but calls from the company wanting to tell me of there newest and latest and greatest product. That I should try and mind you buy also. They never heard of having samples to give to there good clients. And if a company in my so called professional beauty industry wants to tell you the horrors of a major manufacturer it is for there goodness. They just want you to buy there shit.
LOSERS!

 

Mixed Chicks Product Line Wins Lawsuit Against Sally Beauty

Jurors awarded over 8,000,000 to the small company of the Mixed Chicks product line who claimed that the …

MixedChicks wins big!!!!

For the past two years well-known natural hair company Mixed Chicks has been in an ongoing legal battle with Sally Beauty company. Mixed Chicks had filed a lawsuit against the national beauty supply chain in March 2011, for selling a product called “Mixed Silk” at their over 2,000 locations. The plaintiffs felt that the overall appearance of the Mixed Silk product line  infringed on their trademarked labeling due to similarities.

On November 2, the jury found that Sally Beauty had not only infringed on the Mixed Chicks trademark, but had acted “willfully with malice and oppression.” The jury verdict awarded Mixed Chicks LLC $8,114,535 ($839,535 in actual damages and $7,275,000 in punitive damages). In a press release to JET, co-founders Kim Etherege, Wendi Levy and Bradley Kaya spoke on their massive win, ” We invested our hearts and souls into this company and have built the reputation of the Mixed Chicks products as one of distinction and high quality.  It was an expensive case, but we believe in our brand and will fight to protect it.  We are pleased the jury has found Sally Beauty willfully infringed and awarded an amount that will make them think twice about doing so in the future. You can’t just bully little companies.”

Mixed Chicks

 

 

Mixed Chicks Hair Care Products (Good Guys)

sallys rip off

 

 

 

Sally Beauty Supply Mixed Version (Scum Guys)

The trio will also be seeking additional funds for attorney’s fees, a portion of Sally Beauty’s profits of Mixed Silk products and an order to ban the selling of Mixed Silk products. Sally’s beauty supply no longer has a link to there product and when we called they would not answer any questions about the Victory lawsuit Mixed Chicks had with them.

Mixed Silk’s packaging is strikingly similar to that of Mixed Chicks. The pump top on the shampoo & leave-in conditioner is quite convenient for shower use. Silk Elements should have adopted the same design for the deep conditioner; opening and closing it while in the shower is a little time consuming. All of the products have the same strong manufactured fragrant smell. So lady’s and gentlemen you have read it all. Another scum bag company playing and stealing off a entrepreneurs idea. And who needs manufacturers like that in our beauty industry. Of course you will see them at the hair shows and think twice of the hard work a entrepreneur within our industry has to go through to get there product out to the consumer.

The Real Hair Truth!

 

 

Real Hair Truth Cosmetic/Beauty Product Injury Lawsuits

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?

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].