Tag: pba.org

ClassAction.com filed a lawsuit against L’Oreal and Matrix

Always in trouble they are, in a industry were you have manufacturing deception and price gouging. It come to me this is the same old same old crap in my industry.  I was once told when I entered in the beauty its a ‘whore’s business”, or the beauty shows are “flea markets”. That was the best advice and description I could have ever have gotten. And as time has past in my 30 years I see nothing has or will change in my industry. Shop to you drop are the ‘Beauty Shows”. It’s all soap my friends with maybe a little oils, or fragrance. That”s all it is.  So as usual the manufacturers will say anything advertising wise to make a sell to you as the consumer and as to me the professional. I never fall for it anymore.  It has been a very long time since I have been to a “hair show – flea market” that I have lost my respect for the manufacturers. Also they are filled with “snake -oil” salesmen and saleswomen to be correct.  Buy this and buy that will be the first impression from them, I once did a documentary called ‘The real Hair Truth” and we had a few snake oil sales men in it. These are people who will go from company to company selling there “speal” to them for a paycheck. And offering there devotion to them for a few nickels. Most of them do it because of a over sized ego. And most of them there work looks no better than a beauty school drop out. But the manufacturers will place anything on a bottle or label.  Its makes no difference to them if they get caught they will pay penny’s on the dollars in civil court. big Deal, no worry’s maybe they will say a batch of products did not have the “SECRET INGREDIENTS”. MERELY A TECHNICAL GLITCH WITH THE FACTORY MACHINERY.

In the latest case of a company allegedly promising ingredients and benefits its products do not offer or contain, last week ClassAction.com filed a false advertising lawsuit against L’Oreal USA and Matrix Essentials over an array of hair products that appear not to contain the protein keratin.

The products cited in the complaint are the following:

  • Matrix Biolage Keratindose Pro-Keratin + Silk Shampoo
  • Pro-Keratin + Silk Conditioner
  • Pro-Keratin Renewal Spray

The 39-page complaint—filed in the Southern District of New York on January 26, 2017—states:

Through its uniform, nationwide advertising campaign… Defendants have led consumers to believe that their Keratindose Products actually contain keratin and will confer the claimed benefits of keratin to the consumer.

In reality, the Keratindose Products do not contain any keratin at all and are incapable of providing the claimed benefits of keratin to the consumer.

The complaint states that the products’ labels are “false, deceptive and misleading, in violation of the Federal Food Drug & Cosmetics Act and its parallel state statutes, and almost every state warranty, consumer protection, and product labeling law throughout the United States.”

The plaintiffs seek relief for damages, for the defendants to stop engaging in the deceptive advertising alleged in the complaint, and any other relief the Court deems just and proper.

Click on the link to download the file to read. Loreal_Matrix_Keratin_Lawsuit(1)

I am not surprised at all with the lawsuit, but what is surprising to me in my industry we have this so called organization called the “PBA” PROFESSIONAL BEAUTY ASSOCIATION.  THEY DO NOT SAY A PEEP ABOUT ANY OF THESE LAWSUITS OR DO ANY INVESTIGATING AT ALL. BECAUSE THEY ARE IN BED WITH THE MANUFACTURERS.  They tought themselves as the watch dawg’s for the beauty business. Basically if you join them they charge you $300.00 for membership and give you a 10% discount on a hair show.  I call them the Professional bullshit association. They do nothing for the professional but they will sure do a lot for the manufacturers. And anything to do with Licensureship, anything that will hurt the manufacturers schools or state boards they will jump on in a minute. Because if they reported the truth about the industry they would lose manufacturers dollars. They use that to sustain themselves. With out that they would be history. Good day everyone.

The Norm For The Beauty Industry!

This was from a Facebook article that I joined in and here is the problem.

Hello,

My name is Joe and I am trying to get some advice for my wife who is way too nice. So a quick run down on the events.

My wife has worked at a spa for approximately 3-4 years before quitting for another spa. She was paid commissions of 50% and also had a $20 a month so call “booth rental”. She files a 1099 and pays all her own taxes. She was always asked to make trips to get products and called in for meetings but never compensated for her time. All products were supplied by the spa.

So upon my wife advising the owner that she was quitting because lack of steady business and comments regarding closing the hair side of the spa down, my wife was advised that she is not to contact any clients and that if she did so, she would take legal action. Please note that there was no contract of any kind signed. So my wife sent out a text and card to all of the clients that she has worked on just saying she had relocated and if they would like to schedule an appointment to please contact her. Apparently one of the clients brought in the card to the old owner and my wife was sent another text saying this is her last warning.

The very next day, one of my wife’s friends/clients that she has been doing for a long time called her to make an appointment and advised that she had received an email from the old salon stating that My wife was no longer employed at the salon and that she is offering all clients a 50% discount off of hair and free partial facial.

I personally feel that this is a low blow seeing how my wife did not stoop to that level and only sent out a card saying she had relocated. Is there anything that can be done to my wife for sending the cards or any advice you can give on how we should respond to the owners threats?

I appreciate everyone’s time and look forward to your responses.

The concerned husband,

Joe

These are some of the comments contributed by fellow professionals.

The salon and your wife don’t own clients they get to decide for themselves. The old owner is all bark no bite”

She should count her losses and move on. The clients who are loyal will follow her. It’s useless to fight with unreasonable people and it sounds as though her former employer is clueless. She’s not under a contract so your wife can contact whomever she pleases, the consumer will make a choice.

There was nothing written in contract, and actually, the employer can get in deep trouble for charging rent AND being considered having an employee. You can’t be both. It’s too gray- she was not paying your wife’s employment tax, yet treating her like an employee. Legally, your wife would have been responsible for everything, supplies etc. she charged her rent to get past paying her employees taxes/minimum wage. Of course the owner wanted to try to retain the clients but since there was no non compete….. id tell your wife to tell her former salon that if she doesn’t stop harassing her, she will report them for unfair labor practices.”

All you need to do is tell the old salon owner that you will be filing an SS-8 with the IRS to determine if your wife was in fact an commissions or a booth renter and if it’s found that your wife was an employee, then the salon owner will be responsible for back taxes AND will most likely be fined by the IRS for tax’s. You may share this website for verification to the salon owner so she doesn’t think you aren’t meaning business. Whether you actually do it or not is up to you. It appear as if your wife has been classified and you probably should file. You won’t need a lawyer if you get the IRS involved. You can also file with your state’s labor relations board. They aren’t quite as effective as the IRS, though. This is serious business with the IRS. They do not like to be fooled by the tax payers! As someone who has had to deal with them over an unemployment insurance issue, trust me…they have no mercy! (I’m all legit now! I pleaded no knowledge and they let me get away with it once! I had to pay a pretty stiff fine, though!) Don’t be afraid to let the salon owner know that you aren’t afraid to call the IRS. Quite honestly, your wife should not have had to pay taxes all these years.”

SAD!!!

This is the Beauty/Cosmetic Industry. If no contracts were signed she has every right to contact the client. Also the owner has every right also. If the harassment continues from the owner such as the emails stated. Please acquire a cease and desist order against her. And then enjoy your lives. These tactics from the owner are ol school tactics of intimidation. But the owner has every right also just like the employee to keep the business. Since she provide the clients to your loved one. Two way street, this is beauty business and this is how it goes. Its like a whores business, Pimp and Prostitute. It will never change. sir. Primitive industry. Good days, really? It is a lovely craft, but after making 2 documentary’s of the industry. Nothing has changed. Its a free for all. Yes the only way of changing the industry is being a mentor and a role model. Many good MEN and WOMEN are used in this industry. You are really seeing the corporate slavery now. It is hard for all the youngsters coming out to make a living. On the payroll percentages corporations and independent owners are paying. So many professionals I see are taken advantage of. All for GREED, Disgusting.  I don’t see this profession as a viable form of income. Anymore. Unless you are with a Union or the Film/Entertainment Industry. But I love the craft you can always keep learning. I like craft more now since I do makeup and photography and films. You can really learn a lot combining the three crafts. I now just concentrate on the craft. I no longer friend people in the industry. I have found out anyone can be anyone on the internet. So I surround myself with like minded people and stay away from the so called “Stars”.  Internet stars that is! lololol

 

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

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.

In The Beauty Industry The Scum Always Rises To The Top

The Real Hair Truth.com

U.S. Department of Education Takes Enforcement Against Two School Ownership Groups!

Office of Federal Student Aid issues letters denying re certification applications for Title IV eligibility to several Marinello Schools of Beauty and Computer Systems Institute locations
February 1, 2016
As part of the Obama Administration’s ongoing commitment to protect students and increase accountability and transparency in higher education, the U.S. Department of Education is taking action to end the participation in the federal student financial assistance programs of 23 Marinello Schools of Beauty (Marinello) campuses in Nevada and California and three Computer Systems Institute (CSI) campuses in Illinois.

Investigations by the Department’s Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA) uncovered serious violations within both institutions. The Department determined that CSI submitted false job placement rates to its students, the Department, and its national ac-creditor, the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS). The Department determined that Marinello was knowingly requesting Federal aid for students based on invalid high school diplomas, under awarding Title IV aid to students, charging students for excessive overtime, and engaging in other acts of misrepresentation.

“Our students depend on higher education institutions to prepare them for careers through a quality education. Unfortunately, some schools violate their trust through deceptive marketing practices and defraud taxpayers by giving out student aid inappropriately. These unscrupulous institutions use questionable business practices or outright lie to both students and the federal government,” said Under Secretary Ted Mitchell. “In these cases we are taking aggressive action to protect students and taxpayers from further harm by these institutions.”

The Department is denying pending recertification applications for five Marinello locations covering 23 campuses in five cities and enrolling about 2,100 active students.

The campuses are:

  • Las Vegas, Nevada (2 Locations; 209 active students)
  • Los Angeles, California (14 locations; 1,277 active students)
  • Burbank, California (2 locations; 255 active students)
  • Moreno Valley, California (2 locations; 115 active students)
  • Sacramento, California (3 locations; 244 active students)

In addition, the Department previously placed all Marinello schools on Heightened Cash Monitoring 2, which is a step taken by FSA to provide additional oversight of institutions to safeguard taxpayer dollars.

The Department is also denying a pending re certification application from CSI, which enrolls about 2,600 active students.

The letters to the Marinello schools and CSI provide an opportunity for the institutions to submit factual evidence to dispute the Department’s findings. The Marinello schools have until February 16, 2016, to submit such evidence; CSI has until February 12, 2016, to do so. If submitted evidence causes the Department to change its determination, the schools could be able to continue participating in the federal financial aid programs.

The entire Marinello school chain – with 56 campuses across the nation – received more than $87 million in Pell Grants and federal loans for the 2014–15 award year.

Collectively, CSI campuses received approximately $20 million in federal funding for the 2014-15 award year.

For more information about today’s action, please visit StudentAid.gov/sa/about/announcements/marinello and StudentAid.gov/sa/about/announcements/csi.

Real Hair Truth – L’Oreal Paris’s Pervasive and Misleading National Marketing Campaign

The search for the elusive waters of the “Fountain of Youth” has tempted those seeking to restore youth and beauty for ages. Indeed, as the story goes, in 1513, the great explorer Juan Ponce De Leon searched high and low for the “Fountain of Youth” – only to find Florida instead. In the 1800s, “snake oil” salesmen infamously ranged the West selling tonics that claimed to cure every ill, including signs of aging. Today, the search for a youth potion continues and, like modern-day snake oil salesmen. .

L’Oreal USA, Inc. and or and also including L’Oreal Paris Brand Division,  consumers’ fundamental fear of aging and their eternal hope that products exist that can eliminate the signs of aging and effectively turn back time. In fact, L’Oreal profits handsomely by making misleading claims that the L’Oreal Paris Youth Code line of wrinkle creams, specifically Youth Code Serum Intense, Youth Code Eye Cream, and Youth Code Day/Night Cream, (collectively “Youth Code” or “Youth Code Products”) have age-negating effects on human skin.

For example, among other affirmations, L’Oreal Paris specifically promises the following age-negating benefits of using Youth Code: Immediate wrinkle reduction, Skin’s natural regeneration powers are boosted, Breakthrough GenActiv Technology helps stimulate recovery, Boosts skin’s natural powers of regeneration, Skin regains the qualities of young skin, Lines and wrinkles are visibly reduced, Boosts cell turnover. 

 And L’Oreal promises consumers that Youth Code is able to provide such age-negating benefits because of L’Oreal’s claimed scientific breakthroughs and discovery including, but not limited to, the following:

After 10 years of research L’Oreal scientists unlock the code of skin’s youth by discovering a specific set of genes¹ that are responsible for skin’s natural powers of regeneration.

¹in-vivo study

An innovation derived from gene science

L’Oreal’s breakthrough GenActiv Technology™

²Patented in Germany, Spain, France, UK, Italy, and Japan; US Pat. Pending

5. Unfortunately, these claims (and the others detailed below) are false, deceptive, and misleading.

6. As explained more fully herein, L’Oreal Paris has made, and continues to make, deceptive and misleading claims and promises to consumers about the efficacy of Youth Code in a pervasive, nation-wide marketing scheme that confuses and misleads consumers about the true nature of the product. In reality, the Youth Code products do not live up to the claims made by L’Oreal Paris.

7. As a result, L’Oreal Paris’s marketing and advertising campaign is the same as that of the quintessential snake-oil salesman – L’Oreal Paris dupes consumers with false and misleading promises of results it knows it cannot deliver, and does so with one goal in mind – reaping enormous profits.

8. Indeed, the only reason a consumer would purchase Youth Code sold by L’Oreal Paris instead of lower-priced moisturizers, which are readily available, is to obtain the unique results that L’Oreal Paris promises. Upon information and belief, other, lower-priced brands contain substantially the same ingredients or provide substantially the same results as those touted by L’Oreal Paris – the only difference being the false and misleading efficacy claims made by L’Oreal Paris to deceive consumers into paying significantly more for their higher priced Youth Code.

9. A direct result of this pervasive and deceptive marketing campaign is that consumers across the country, including Plaintiffs and the proposed Class, International Patent²

²Patented in Germany, Spain, France, UK, Italy, and Japan; US Pat. Pending

5. Unfortunately, these claims (and the others detailed below) are false, deceptive, and misleading.

6. As explained more fully herein, L’Oreal Paris has made, and continues to make, deceptive and misleading claims and promises to consumers about the efficacy of Youth Code in a pervasive, nation-wide marketing scheme that confuses and misleads consumers about the true nature of the product. In reality, the Youth Code products do not live up to the claims made by L’Oreal Paris.

7. As a result, L’Oreal Paris’s marketing and advertising campaign is the same as that of the quintessential snake-oil salesman – L’Oreal Paris dupes consumers with false and misleading promises of results it knows it cannot deliver, and does so with one goal in mind – reaping enormous profits.

8. Indeed, the only reason a consumer would purchase Youth Code sold by L’Oreal Paris instead of lower-priced moisturizers, which are readily available, is to obtain the unique results that L’Oreal Paris promises. Upon information and belief, other, lower-priced brands contain substantially the same ingredients or provide substantially the same results as those touted by L’Oreal Paris – the only difference being the false and misleading efficacy claims made by L’Oreal Paris to deceive consumers into paying significantly more for their higher priced Youth Code. A direct result of this pervasive and deceptive marketing campaign is that consumers across the country, including Plaintiffs and the proposed Class,purchased skin-care products for higher prices that do not provide the results promised.

10. Moreover, because the Youth Code Products do not provide the promised results, Plaintiffs and the proposed Class did not receive what they paid for.

11. L’Oreal Paris’s deceptive statements about the efficacy of Youth Code are equally applicable to each of the Youth Code Products because those deceptive and misleading statements appear uniformly on all Youth Code product advertisements and packaging.

12. Plaintiffs seek relief in this action individually and as a class action on behalf of all purchasers in the United States of at least one of the Youth Code Products (“the Class”) at any time from the date of product launch to the present (the “Class Period”) for violation of consumer protections laws including Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Laws and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. § 58:8-1.

So basically they are suing Loreal for Deception. L’Oreal Paris’s pervasive false and misleading national marketing campaign includes the dissemination of deceptive advertising through a variety of mediums including, but not limited to, internet, television, and print media. Many of the same deceptive and misleading statements are also printed on the Youth Code product boxes. A central theme of L’Oreal Paris’s deceptive and misleading national marketing campaign, which permeates throughout its print, television and web-based advertisements and product literature, is that Youth Code, and the results promised by L’Oreal Paris, are the result of vigorous scientific research. In fact, while such claims of scientific research and discovery provide L’Oreal Paris with an increased level of credibility among unsuspecting consumers, and therefore increased sales, the scientific “discoveries” are simply part and parcel of L’Oreal Paris’s deceptive and misleading advertising campaign. Despite L’Oreal’s admission in its Code of Business Ethics (2007) that “overselling our products by making inflated or exaggerated claims for them is dishonest,” L’Oreal nonetheless turns a blind eye to its own policy for the sake of increased profits. By making specific promises regarding the efficacy of Youth Code, L’Oreal Paris’s advertising transcends the realm of mere puffery and becomes actionable as deceptive and misleading.

Regardless of where Plaintiffs and the Class purchased the Youth Code products (i.e., on-line, in a drugstore, or from third-party retailers), they were exposed to L’Oreal Paris’s pervasive, deceptive and misleading advertising messages and material omissions regarding the efficacy promises of Youth Code. Indeed, no reasonable consumer would purchase a $24.99 jar of wrinkle cream without some “knowledge” of what the product claims to do.

 L’Oreal Paris’s advertising and marketing for Youth Code is misleading in several ways. L’Oreal Paris claims that the Youth Code products are protected by an “INTERNATIONAL PATENT.” This patent claim is found on the product boxes themselves and is printed directly below the claim “YOUTH GENERATING DISCOVERY – Innovation derived from GENE Science.” The proximity of the patent claim to the “YOUTH GENERATING DISCOVERY” claim misleadingly conveys to consumers that the patent somehow involves the purported “10 years of research” leading to the “discover[y]” of a “specific set of genes.” However, upon information and belief, none of the actual patents listed on any of the Youth Code products relate to any such gene innovation or the discovery of a “specific set of genes that are responsible for the skin’s natural powers of regeneration.” Instead, upon information and belief, the patents identified on the Youth Code packaging relate to: “novel compounds having an improved power to moisturize skin and/or hair”; “a new family of thickening or gelling polymers making it possible to obtain stable thickened cosmetic and dermatological formulations”; “a novel family of thickening and/or gelling polymers which makes it possible to obtain a very large number of cosmetic and dermatological formulations which may contain supports of different nature”; and a “photostable cosmetic composition intended for protecting the skin against UV-radiation.” Falsely touting that its research has led to a discovery of a specific set of genes that is protected by patents is part and parcel of L’Oreal Paris’s deceptive scheme to convince consumers that its products will provide unique skin regeneration benefits based on the promised and patented “gene science” discovery and are therefore worth their price tag. L’Oreal Paris heavily markets its Youth Code in print media, including the placing of advertisements in such widely circulated magazines as Glamour, Vogue, and Vanity Fair, among others. L’Oreal Paris’s print media advertising contains the same false and deceptive claims as its other forms of advertising detailed herein. L’Oreal Paris touts the benefits of its skin-care products using models and celebrity spokespersons who claim to exemplify the results of the products. What L’Oreal Paris fails to disclose is that the images of the celebrities it uses are airbrushed, digitized, embellished, “Photo-shopped” or otherwise altered and, therefore, contrary to the claims made by Lancôme, cannot and do not illustrate the effectiveness of its products. In sum, the images used by L’Oreal Paris to sell Youth Code have nothing to do with the effectiveness of the products themselves.

 julia roberts lancome Fake images banned for misleading consumers.

Most recently, the National Advertising Division in the United States has taken a stance against the use of Photoshop in cosmetics advertising, noting that “advertising self-regulatory authorities recognize the need to avoid photoshopping in cosmetics advertisements where there is a clear exaggeration of potential product benefits.”

L’Oreal Paris uses statistics to mislead consumers into believing that the promised results are virtually guaranteed. For example, in the above print advertisement, L’Oreal Paris claims that “95% of women saw results.**” Any reasonable consumer would associate that claim with the foregoing specific efficacy promises that “One Drop instantly improves skin quality; One Week skin looks visibly younger; and One Month skin acts dramatically younger.*” However, in virtually unreadable, microscopically small print at the very bottom of the advertisement, L’Oreal Paris clarifies the results and promises. The single asterisk indicates that after use of the product for one month, “*Skin is firmer and cell renewal increases.” However, underneath that, L’Oreal Paris attempts to clarify that the results that 95% of women saw were not for firmer skin, cell renewal or visibly younger skin – but rather for “One or more of these benefits: feels restored, rested, smoothness.” This nonsensical (and nearly invisible) disclaimer has nothing to do with the claims that Youth Code makes as to its gene science, gene research and skin regenerating powers in the primary marketing message. Thus, the attempted disclaimer does nothing to cure the misleading nature of the use of the statistical “95%” claim. L’Oreal Paris’s false and misleading claims are the crux of its marketing campaign for Youth Code, therefore leading to increased sales and profits for L’Oreal Paris that it otherwise would not have enjoyed without resorting to such deception. L’Oreal Paris’s promises of specific results and scientific discoveries that enable such results cannot be defended as mere puffery. Indeed, L’Oreal admits in its 2011 annual report that the “close interaction between science and marketing . . . is a key advantage to L’Oreal’s innovation approach.” L’Oreal Paris relies on such a “close interaction” because it knows that consumers are more likely to believe its empty promises, and therefore more likely to purchase it products, when indicia of scientific research are present. To perpetuate its deceptive scheme, L’Oreal Paris has a short product cycle, releasing new products every couple of years based upon some new “research” or purported “scientific discovery.” L’Oreal Paris does so in order to falsely tout its new products via a re-imagined marketing campaign in order to keep driving sales and profits that would otherwise stagnate once consumers used the products and realized that they do not perform as promised. This scheme is evident by the fact that L’Oreal Paris discontinues sales and production of its older products once new products are introduced to the market, despite the fact that the claims made on the discontinued products are purportedly designed based on amazing scientific breakthroughs. For example, L’Oreal Paris discontinued its Wrinkle Defense product, for which it made the following promises: combats the emergence of new lines and surface wrinkles, reduce the appearance of fine lines and wrinkles, skin-resiliency booster, L’Oreal Paris discontinued this product from the market despite its promised efficacy. L’Oreal Paris’s removal of the purportedly effective product, Wrinkle Defense, from the market demonstrates that L’Oreal Paris’s promised discoveries and benefits are illusory and nothing more than clever marketing. Basically they are always in court. Remember read the labels on your products everyone. If you cannot pronounce it don’t use it!