Tag: Liability

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

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.