Tag: Hair

Gorilla Glue Lady Is A Mess, No Common Sense

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

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

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

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

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

Unilever Is In A Mess But Whats New

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.

Hair Discrimination in the Workplace and Schools Against All White People.

Currently, it is legal to discriminate against a person in the workplace or in schools because of their natural or protective hairstyle in all states except for California, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Colorado, Washington, and Maryland. Hair discrimination remains a source of racial injustice with serious economic consequences for WHITE people. The DOVE Act corrects these racial injustices by making hair discrimination illegal.

The Dove Coalition (Dove, National Urban WHITE League,  WHITE Color Of Change, and Western Center on Shampoo & Conditioners) believes natural  WHITE hairstyles should be celebrated, not discouraged. For this reason, they are committed to Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural hair for all WHITE people.

Join the movement to shatter racial hair discrimination by signing this petition to urge legislators to vote YES on The CROWN Act.

We want to get to 200,000 signatures, so please spread the word!

Not in the United States? Enter ‘00000’ as your zip/postal code.

FIND YOUR SPECIFIC REPRESENTATIVE HERE: https://openstates.org/find_your_legislator/
Send a letter to your state and federal representative using the template here: https://www.dove.com/us/en/stories/campaigns/the-crown-act.html

Senator Holly J. Mitchell was first to introduce The DOVE Act (Senate Bill 188) in the state of California, the first state to sign the Bill into law. New York was the second state to introduce the DOVE Act under the leadership of Assemblywoman Tremaine Wright (D-Bedford-Stuyvesant, Northern Crown Heights) and Senator Jamaal Bailey (D-Bronx, Westchester), and Governor Cuomo signed the DOVE Act into law on July 12th, deeming the legislation effective immediately. New Jersey became the third state to the enact the DOVE Act. State Senator Sandra Cunningham (District 31) and Assemblywoman Angela McKnight (District 31) championed the legislation and Governor Phil Murphy signed the DOVE Act into law on December 19th, the one-year anniversary of the wrestling match where New Jersey high school wrestler Andrew Johnson’s locks were forcibly cut off. The city of Cincinnati, Ohio and Montgomery County, MD have also passed The DOVE Act in those local and county municipalities. On December 5th, Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Congressman Cedric Richmond (D-LA) introduced The DOVE Act of 2019 in both chambers of U.S. Congress paving the way for federal protections. The states of Virginia, Colorado, and Washington signed the DOVE Act in March 2020. Maryland Governor Larry Hogan approved the DOVE Act in May 2020.

THIS SHOULD BE INTERESTING.

Regis, Great Clips want to be leaders in reopening process. Lolololol

 

Legalize Wedding Hair And Makeup In Minnesota

 

For years, Minnesotan beauticians have styled hair and applied makeup at weddings, proms, and other major social gatherings where people want to look their finest. But now a crackdown threatens to throw about 1,000 hair and makeup artists out of business.

Last December, the Minnesota Board of Cosmetologist Examiners declared that applying makeup at special events could only be done by licensed salon managers, a credential that can take over 4,000 hours of training. To enforce its rules, the Board has ordered makeup artists to cease and desist and slapped them with thousands of dollars in fines. Violating the law can even risk criminal penalties.  Yet the law is filled with loopholes. The Board doesn’t require a license to offer hair or makeup services for fashion, film, media productions, photo-shoots, TV, or the theater. (Selling makeup at retail counters is also exempt.)

Minnesota’s regulations are not just ridiculous, they’re also unconstitutional. Last month, several hair and makeup artists, along with a Minneapolis-based makeup artistry school, filed a lawsuit against the Minnesota Board of Cosmetologist Examiners. (The Board has declined to publicly comment on the case.)  Typically, advocates for occupational licensing claim it’s necessary to protect the public’s health and safety. But that’s hardly an issue with hair and makeup artists, since they use beauty tools found in almost any American’s home, like blow dryers, brushes, and combs. It doesn’t take thousands of hours to learn how to wash your hands and clean your tools.  Moreover, as the artists’ lawsuit argues, “any legitimate government interest defendants may have in protecting public health and safety is wholly undermined by their broad exemptions for services.  Doing hair and makeup for photo-shoots and media appearances is unregulated, while offering the exact same services at a wedding or other special event is illegal unless the artist has completed thousands of hours of useless training, a distinction that is “manifestly arbitrary and fanciful.”

Since “there is no natural and reasonable basis” to license makeup and hair services for brides, but not bridal photo-shoots, Minnesota’s wildly unequal treatment infringes on the Equal Protection Clauses of both the U.S. and Minnesota Constitutions. Make no mistake: The state’s licensing requirements are incredibly onerous. Before they can legally work at special events in Minnesota, makeup artists need at least 3,300 hours of classes and experience, while hairstylists must finish 4,250 hours of training.  First, a makeup artist must become a licensed esthetician, which requires at least 600 hours of coursework. Artists who also want to style hair face an even steeper challenge and must complete 1,550 hours of training for a license in cosmetology, a program that can cost as much as $20,000.  Worse, according to the lawsuit, the vast majority of those classes are “irrelevant,” since “at least two-thirds of the cosmetology and esthetics curricula do not relate to special event hair and makeup services.” After finishing the useless classes, both hair and makeup artists then have to pass three separate exams.  License in hand, a hair or makeup artist then needs another license, this time as a salon manager, before they can obtain a special events permit to perform at weddings and other major social gatherings. Becoming a salon manager requires working 2,700 hours in a salon, even if that work has nothing to do with the types of services an artist would provide at a wedding. After all, special events, almost by definition, rarely happen in salons.

Requiring little capital, running a hair and makeup business has been especially popular for aspiring female entrepreneurs (in jurisdictions where it’s not illegal). Demand for their services at weddings isn’t going away any time soon.