Monat Class Action Lawsuit Already


A new class action lawsuit alleges that Monat Global Corp. promotes its hair-care products as being able to help growth, but consumers say they actually lost hair and experienced irritation after using the products.

Lead plaintiffs, Trisha Whitmire and Emily Yanes de Flores, allege in their class action lawsuit that they and others purchased Monat hair care products because they were promised aid in hair growth and health; however, say the plaintiffs, the chemicals in the products actually lead to increased hair loss. They say the misrepresentations are part of a scam by Monat to get consumers to purchase even more expensive products from them. Both plaintiffs allege that they experienced significant hair loss after investing substantial sums in Monat products. They say they brought their concerns to the company, but were told they were going through a “detox” process and would see healthier hair if they continued to use the Monat products. They say the company also pointed the finger at suppliers when they continued to complain.

“Shamefully, hair loss claims are met with unsubstantiated claims of a ‘detox’ period that will cause increased hair loss before the purported benefits of Monat hair care products accrue or worse yet, suggestions to spend more money on still more expensive Monat haircare products,” the Monat class action lawsuit states. Frustratingly, allege the plaintiffs, the hair loss does not stop, even after consumers stop using the Monat products. According to the Monat class action lawsuit, Monat advertises its products as “naturally-based” and “safe.” The plaintiffs say they were drawn in by claims that the hair care products were “suitable for all skin and hair types.”

Further, allege the plaintiffs, Monat claims that their products stop hair loss and aid in regrowth. The website, according to the complaint, touts chemicals used in Monat products as clinically proven to provide a “significant decrease in hair loss effect and increase in hair regrowth.”

“In fact, MONAT Hair Care Products use numerous harsh chemicals and known human allergens. As a result of the defective nature of the MONAT Hair Care Products, they were and are unfit for their intended use and purpose,” the Monat class action lawsuit claims. According to the class action lawsuit, many other consumers experienced the same problems and misleading responses from the hair care company; however, Monat, a multilevel marketing scheme, has scrubbed customer complaints from the internet. The Monat class action alleges that the wealthy family running the business has even sued a woman who set up a Facebook page for those who suffered hair loss after using Monat.The plaintiffs seek to represent Monat hair care users who purchased the products since Jan. 1, 2014. The plaintiffs are seeking damages as well as a court order stopping Monat from allegedly misrepresenting their product to the public.

The consumers are represented by Brian W. Warwick and Janet R. Varnell of Varnell & Warwick PA, Charles J. LaDuca and William H. Anderson of Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, John A. Yanchunis of Morgan & Morgan PA, and Joel R. Rhine and Dara Damery of Rhine Law Firm PC.

The Monat Haircare Products Class Action Lawsuit is Trisha Whitmire, et al. v. Monat Global Corp., Case No. 1:18­-cv­-20636, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Ulta Beauty Starting To Make Headline For The Wrong.

Ulta, Ulta, Ulta. Is in existence because the professionals of the Beauty Industry never took a stand. And a lot of the “Riff Raff”, in the Beauty is because of the complacent professionals.  Worry about there craft and not there industry. Not learning the politics and letting the wolves lead them. That is what happens when you are a sheep and not educated in the Art Of Deceptive Practices.  My Grandfather always said, “Be as sweet as a sheep, But as slick as a snake”. And right he was. The only reason ULTA is in existence is because of US.  No one else, just US. They sell our tools, products, they have a salon who will do work for very cheap cheap. They too away our retail edge and basically all you have is a craft left.

I could go on for hours, and hours and hours. Enlightening you of the “Dark Force”, in our industry. But to no avail the only interest is balayage, ombre etc, etc, etc. So here we go with some news.

A woman who claims she used to work for Ulta Beauty is calling out the chain for unsanitary practices. Twitter user @fatinamxo is using the platform to “warn” other beauty lovers about the safety of their makeup. In a series of tweets, the ex-employee alleged that her managers at the retailer would tell her to “clean” and repackage used items to be sold again. “So I was a former employee at ULTA and whenever a customer would return a product, we were told by managers to repackage/reseal the item and put it back on the shelf,” she wrote on Twitter. “They would resell EVERYTHING. (makeup , hair care , skincare, fragrance ,hair tools, etc.),” she said in a follow-up tweet.

She then posted images of new makeup and makeup she claimed was returned used, repackaged and resold. “For example this foundation (even-sticks) they would clean it with a q-tip to make it look new. I’ll attach a photo of a NEW foundation vs. the one they repackaged and put back on the shelf. ( NOT SANITIZED ),” she captioned the photo.

The Twitter user said her managers would “clean [products] with alcohol” as a way to make them look new.  Her allegations have earned thousands of likes on Twitter, as well as several people coming forward with their own similar stories about Ulta Beauty’s unhygienic practices. “Can 100% confirm this is true. Shopping at any ULTA in Frisco, Mckinney, Denton, Sherman, Allen, basically the entire Dallas area and around they train every single employee to do this. All the stores in the area do this,” one wrote. One ex-employee offered a reason for the “disgusting” action, writing “I worked at Ulta too…and they did that too. They wanted their shrinkage to be low so that’s why but it was so disgusting.” Some Ulta Beauty employees have shared different accounts, stating that their stores never cleaned and resold used make-up. The beauty store released a statement to TODAY regarding the allegations, saying that used products are supposed to be thrown out.

They even put back a USED liquid lipstick, the manager said she would “clean it with alcohol” ( that was the last straw for me ) here is a photo of a lip palette ( exclusive online only ) that was returned and mangers put it back on the shelf to resell (CLEARLY NOT SANITIZED).


“We do not allow the resale of used or damaged products,” an Ulta Beauty spokesperson told TODAY.

Here comes the “BULLSHIT” everyone.

“Our store associates are trained to catalog and then properly dispose of any used or damaged items. If associates have concerns that this or any Ulta Beauty policy is not being followed, they can anonymously report it through our third-party hotline. Our policies, training and procedures are aimed at ensuring that only the highest-quality products are sold in our stores and online. “We take any concern of this nature very seriously and if we find that there is any deviation from our policies, we will take appropriate actions to ensure we continue providing a consistently high-quality product,” the statement continued. “The health and safety of Ulta Beauty guests is a top priority and we strive to deliver an optimal experience every time they shop with us.” The woman said she took to Twitter not because she dislikes Ulta, but wanted to warn others against buying used makeup. Good Job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




The Real Hair Truth


Are you doing something about it in your business?

Yes you can go into these super stores of beauty and just about find anything you want inside of them.  Perfumes, cosmetics, makeup, hair care, even hair color. They have a salon to also get you hair styled and whatever else. But to the real professional who has some form of professionalism inside of them. It is merely a flea market like the hair shows.  So how could you work in a company who sell boxed hair color to the consumers coming into the store. And then at the same time work in their salon. I would love to know. That to me is a sign of being in competition with your employer.

But the days of loyalty are gone. That is from a manufacturer and as I might also say from the consumer also. Pity my profession. A lot of the profession has been sliced and diced. You have nail salons to go to, Spa’s to go to. And now Salons who go ahead and offer Blow-Drying and Makeup also. The day of the salon being the place to get your beauty needs done are over. This also increases a lot of competition with in the industry with the professionals. Too many stores create an over saturation of the industry.

Leaving many professionals with out jobs and too much competition.  Nothing wrong with that but from the studio I work at by myself there must be at least 20-30 booth rental and salon advertisements to compete with. Salons now are a dime a dozen. Every strip mall built-in Orlando has a dry cleaner, salon and liquor store in them. Too many salons and too many places to purchase my professional tools, products etc.  But within my industry there are a few factions who bestow the honor of calling themselves “Representatives Of Our Beauty Industry”.  They want you to think they are there for you, but they are merely representatives of the manufacturers.

These organizations who charge over $300.00 to join say they are the “Professional Beauty Association” To represent you on all and every issue governmental to state rulings and passing of laws concerning the Beauty Industry. Believe me everyone they are a scam also. especially when the are buying the hair shows up. I always thought that if you are an oversight committee that you should remain neutral in your preferences within the Beauty Industry. But sit back and investigate for yourself and you will find out they do nothing for you as a professional in the Beauty industry.  Other than giving you a discount to their hair shows.

So many in the industry are keen to my voice and other voices have raised up to take part in informing the professional what it is all about “NOW”. Many new independent company’s are forming and the  Independent social media has taken a HUGE chunk in the education and commentary aspects of the industry. Bravo!  Informing others who and what is really out there now in the industry and who is for the industry etc. A few years ago I seen this gentleman come out of the shadows and live off his daddy’s coat tails. Selling a new product for all in the industry. Claiming,” this will change the industry” my new shampoo and conditioner.. Take it from me when some one speaks of that nature they are merely a “Snake Oil Salesman”. He made a little money but what sold it was is daddy’s last name. This guy didn’t know the difference from a hair pin and a bobby pin. But since he USED his daddy’s name he sold a few bottles and made his money and “WALLAH” he took a boogie out of the industry. Never to be seen again. I can still hear him laughing.

Times change and so do people, this was a very important to me to say a few words. I don’t lose sleep over these action anymore within my industry. I take it for what it is and how it could have been stopped, but never was.  I hold my “CRAFT’ in high regards but when it comes down to the “ELITES” of my industry there words and praises me little to me.  I used to have mentors but that is a big word to me now, which holds a lot of respect but from what I see none can fill those shoes.. Now I just have one mentor and he is the greatest of them all.

Trust me he wont sell me out.

And that’s how I feel.   The Real Hair Truth

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 ( – Who says they are the legal eagle of the industry). (Behind The Chair – This is the Sears & Roebucks of the Beauty Industry), (Hair – Which basically is what it says it is Hair brained), (Salon – 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

Last chance to claim your money!!!


Organix Shampoo Maker Agrees to $6.5M Class Action Settlement Get Your Money!!!!

The maker of Organix skin and hair care products has agreed to pay $6.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit over claims that it falsely labeled its products as organic. The Organix class action settlement was filed in California federal court on August 22 and resolves all claims related to its allegedly deceptive marketing and advertising practices.

Under the terms of the Organix settlement, defendant Vogue International will pay $6.5 million into a fund set aside to compensate consumers who purchased Organix products. Class Members who submit valid claims are eligible to receive $4 for each Organix product they purchased, up to a maximum of $28. The class action settlement will also prohibit Vogue from manufacturing skin and hair care products under the Organix brand. The company also agreed to stop using the term “organic” on a product label unless at least 70 percent of its ingredients are organically produced.

The Organix class action lawsuit was initially filed by Andrea Golloher, Roberta Chase, Michael Shapiro and Brenda Brown in Alameda County Superior Court in 2012. In November, Vogue removed the case to California federal court. Vogue moved to dismiss the class action lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring breach of warranty claims in Florida, New Jersey, Ohio and Texas because they had not purchased Organix products in those states. They agreed to settle the lawsuit before the judge ruled on their motion to dismiss, although Vogue continues to deny that its marketing and advertising was false or misleading.

In an amended version of the class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed that the name “Organix” was misleading, and that the products contained only 10 percent organic ingredients. They allege that they would not have paid the higher price for the products had they known that they were not truly organic. When making the decision to buy the hair and skin care products, they relied on the front and back labels, which stated that the products contained organic ingredients.

The Organix class action settlement was reached after an all-day mediation session with Randall W. Wulff, a highly-respected mediator in Oakland, California. Organix products typically sell for $7.99, but Vogue often offers the products at a “buy one get one free” discount. In the class action settlement, the parties agreed that a reimbursement of $4 per product was fair. They also agreed that future purchasers of the Organix product line would be protected by the injunction preventing Vogue from making misleading statements about organic ingredients in its products.

Under the terms of the Organix settlement, Class Members include “all individuals in the United States who purchased at least one of Vogue’s Organix brand hair care and/or skin care products from October 25, 2008 to the date notice to the Class is first published.”.

If you purchased Organix hair care and skin care products at any time between October 25, 2008, and October 10, 2013, you may be eligible to claim up to $28 cash from the class action settlement. Eligible Organix products include but are not limited to Organix Coconut Milk, Organix Macadamia Oil, Organix Cocoa Butter, Oganix Brazilian Keratin Therapy, Organix Moroccan Argan Oil, and more.








Claim Forms can be submitted online at or mailed to the Settlement Administrator at the following address:

Organix Class Settlement Claims Administrator Heffler Claims Group P.O. Box 59029 Philadelphia, PA 19102


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].