What California Bill 1513 Means for Salons and Spas on Commission

The Real Hair Truth

About frigging time, say goodbye bye to free labor. People deserve to be paid. Especially for sitting there waiting for a customer. Time is money. The ol trick of hiring a professional and giving them a chair and telling them they have to build up there clientele when they answer a advertisement for employment will be gone. That old trick is history, and should teach salon owners labor is not free. Good for the industry this should keep the owners honest. The industry was built on free labor. Pay back time. How can a professional come to work worrying about rent, food, electric, transportation etc if they work on commission. Salon owners will say I can’t do that, then you shouldn’t have opened a salon. Now I will wait for all the know it all’s to reply. Please do I love debate. I have watch professionals I have worked with in my 33 years of this industry, ripped offed, taken advantaged of, and done so much wrong to they have gotten out of the profession. Its interesting how salon owners can come up and blame the professionals. And assume that with your words that all are alike. “Have to pay people to sit in the break room, on their cellphones, bitching about how they are not busy.” Well not everyone in this industry does what you say. I’m glad to see this, it should have happened along time ago. I love it! Boo Hoo for the salon owners, good for the employees. The employees are what make you. About time this happened, I love all the new ways and new roads the industry is changing. Be your own Boss everyone Don’t live other peoples dreams. You will have nothing in the end. Especially in the Beauty Industry!, Hah!

Note: Although CA employment attorneys were consulted when researching this article, we highly recommend that you contact a legal representative to discuss your rights and responsibilities on this topic. Strategies is not a legal counsel and the contents of this article should not be considered as such. We will be updating this post as more information is presented to us.

Commission salons and spas in California were just given the ultimate “Bad Hair Day”.

With the passage of California Bill 1513 “piece-rate legislation”, the rules have completely changed on how salon and spa owners can compensate their stylists and massage therapists.

For all intents and purposes, the traditional commission model is no longer compliant in California. Strict new laws now require salons and spas to drastically alter they way they compensate their commissioned employees.

And unfortunately, the potential financial impact of Bill 1513 on many salons and spas could be catastrophic. See the full bill here.

What you need to know

Piece-rate vs. commission compensation:

As per the Labor Code, compensation for salon/spa services is technically labeled as “piece-rate” work, and not commission. Confused? Let’s look at the Labor Code’s definition of each classification:

  • Piece-rate is defined as pay “based upon an ascertainable figure paid for completing a particular task or making a particular piece of goods.”
  • Commission employees are defined as anyone “involved principally in selling a product or service, not making the product or rendering the service, and their compensation must be a percent of the price of the product or service.”

Because stylists and massage therapist are rendering services and not just selling them, their work is considered “piece-rate.” Why does this labeling matter? Because Bill 1513 only applies to piece-rate work and not commission work. But again, the Labor Code’s definition of commission is not the same as the salon/spa industry’s.

Big game changer #1…

Effective January 2016, all “piece-rate” California salons and spas must track, report and pay their stylists or massage therapists for “non-productive” and “rest/recovery” time.

“Non-productive time” is defined as the time employees are required to be at work, but are not actively servicing clients. This includes time…

  • Waiting for the next client to arrive
  • Folding towels
  • Sweeping the floor
  • Assisting at the front desk
  • Attending meetings
  • Technical training’s

“Rest/recovery times” is defined as time…

  • On break and meals

In other words, every minute that services providers are in the salon/spa and are not either servicing a client or on break, needs to be tracked, reported and compensated for.

The “non-productive” and “rest/recovery” pay rates must be at least the California minimum wage.

Big game changer #2…

And it’s a biggie…

The law states compensation for “non-productive” and “rest/recovery” time must be a separate pay rate from the rate paid for when services are being produced.

This means you are no longer allowed to average the total dollars paid by the total hours worked and let that cover both “productive” and “non-productive/rest” hours.

Previously, as long as the averaged hourly rate equaled or surpassed minimum wage, all was good.

This is no longer the case.

Big game changer #3…

In addition to aforementioned restrictions, Bill 1513 also contains one final crippling blow for California-based commission salons and spas:

  • Employers are required to calculate and pay back wages for all “non-productive” and “rest/recovery” hours worked dating back to July 1, 2012. And yes, employees have started filing lawsuits demanding back wages for this time period.
  • Or… choose the Safe Harbor option: Valid until July 1, 2016, Employers may choose to pay each employee 4% of their total earnings dating back to July 1, 2012. The state must be notified by July 1, 2016 that this option is being pursued, and full payment would be due by December 15, 2016. Doing so will also make them immune from any future employee lawsuits specifically related to Bill 1513.

An Example…Salon Sacramento

  • Open since 2006
  • $800,000 in gross service sales every year
  • 10 full-time stylists, each paid 50% commission
  • Each stylist works 40 per week, and is 75% productive.
  • California minimum wage as of 1/1/16: $10.00 per hour

Now let’s do some math…

  • $800,000 / 10 stylists = $80,000/yr gross revenue generated per stylist
  • $80,000 @ 50% commission = $40,000/yr gross pay for each stylist
  • If each stylist works 40 hour per week and is 75% productive, this means that 30 hours are spent servicing clients, and 10 hours are “non-productive” or “rest/recovery” hours.
  • 10 “non-productive” hours per week for 52 weeks is 520 “non-productive” hours for per year, per stylist

How this scenario would look under Bill 1513…

  • In addition to the $40,000 paid to each stylist for their commissions on services, they would each be due an additional $5,200 in compensation for their 520 “non-productive” hours worked at the minimum wage rate of $10 per hour.
  • This brings each stylist’s pay to $45,200/yr, the equivalent of 56% commission.
  • Multiplied by 10 stylists, this is a $52,200 increase in total salon payroll.

Salon Sacramento’s back wages due on all “non-productive” hours since July 1, 2012

  • We’re going to round our numbers to 3 years for clarity-sake
  • $52,200 x 3 = $156,600 due to employees if paid in full without using the Safe Harbor Clause
  • Or, if Salon Sacramento chooses to use the Safe Harbor Clause and pay the 4% penalty on all wages paid since 7/1/12, the amount due by December 15, 2016 would be as follows:
    • $40,000/yr x 10 stylists x 3 years = 1,200,000 / .04 = $48,000

Compensation alternatives for California salons & spas

So where do commission-based California salons and spas go from here? One thing is clear, the days of easily calculating 50% for them and 50% for the house are gone.

Here are four employee-based compensation structures for California salons and spas moving forward:

  • Continue to pay commission/piece-work. The big challenge presented here is how will salons and spas be able to afford paying for “non-productive” and “rest/recovery” hours on top of the commission rates they are already paying? Yes, commission rates that fluctuate or are averaged based on weekly sales could be used, but these methods would also introduce substantial increases in bookkeeping responsibilities. They also may spawn confusion and resentment from service providers.
  • Hourly pay: Putting service providers on a fixed hourly rate is a sure-fire way to meet all California compensation requirements, as long as the hourly rate is at minimum wage or higher. However, if salons and spas don’t have the systems and leadership to drive sales and keep staff motivated, issues may arise.
  • Hourly plus commission: Keeping close to the current commission structure, employers could elect to pay service providers a set hourly wage (such as minimum wage), and then add a reduced-rate commission for each service rendered.
  • Team-Based Pay: Converting to a Team-Based Pay (TBP) structure not only meets all Bill 1513 requirements, but also offers growth and cultural benefits far beyond traditional salon/spa compensation models. TBP is an hourly and/or salary program with a team bonus that is tied the achievement of critical numbers (e.g., revenue, gross margin, client retention, productivity, pre-booking, retailing, net profit). Individual growth is tied to overall performance – not just the employee’s ability to generate revenue. A TBP system is designed to reward the right behaviors and performance – those that support the business’s goals and culture. RELATED: To learn more about the benefits and structure of Team-Based Pay, download Strategies’ free Team-Based Pay white paper report here.

As counter-intuitive and debilitating Bill 1513 is to the California salon/spa landscape, it is not something not to be taken lightly. If you are not pro-active in making the necessary changes now, you could be facing state fines, employee lawsuits for back wages or both.

Where can you get help?

Your first step should be to talk to a legal representative to learn what your legal rights and responsibilities are with Bill 1513. They will also have a very firm understanding of the bill as more details and cases are presented.

Your next step should be to restructure your pay structure to meet all compliance standards. If you would like one-on-one help from our team of Certified Strategies Coaches to quickly execute the restructuring of your compensation system to Team-Based Pay, click the link below. Not only will we ensure you meet all Bill 1513 guidelines, we will help you implement a pay program that can increases sales and profits, motivate your staff to grow the business, and provide world-class customer service.

Click here for hands-on help from a Strategies compensation expert.

Note: We highly recommend that you contact a legal representative to discuss your rights and responsibilities on this topic. Strategies is not a legal counsel and the contents of this article should not be considered as such. We will be updating this post as more information is presented to us.

ll

Revlon CEO rips blacks, Jews, hates ‘dirty’ Americans!

the real hair truth

Revlon CEO rips blacks, Jews, hates ‘dirty’ Americans!

The CEO of Revlon is a bigoted bully who hates “dirty” Americans, thinks Jews “stick together” and believes he can “smell” black people when they walk into a room, according to a new lawsuit.

The beauty company’s boss, Lorenzo Delpani, made the ugly comments after taking over in 2013, according to a discrimination suit filed by Revlon’s former top scientist, Alan Meyers, who says he was ostracized because of his Jewish heritage.

Delpani, a native of Italy, told Meyers he was “shocked” there weren’t more Jews at the company because the biggest shareholder is Ron Perelman, a prominent Jewish American, according to the suit.

“Jews stick together,” Delpani quipped. He also allegedly added that “thankfully,” Perelman “is not like that anymore.”

Delpani also said that he hates living among Americans, whom he called “small-minded” and “dirty,” and that he can’t wait to get back to a “real” country, according to court papers filed this week.

He later allegedly went on an “anti-American tirade” in which he said the US is getting closer to being like ISIS.

Meyers also claims Delpani made a racist comment after a meeting in South Africa, when he said he “could smell a black person when he entered a room.”

Meyers says Delpani had it out for him for having red-flagged safety issues in the production and manufacturing process.

Meyers claims he was concerned that several labs were not equipped to adequately test raw materials to satisfy Revlon’s safety standards.

Meyers, 56, who joined Revlon in 2010, was fired last month after he complained about the issues and his treatment, the lawsuit says.

Revlon spokeswoman Kiki Rees on Wednesday said Meyers was a disgruntled employee who did not perform up to company standards.

“Mr. Meyers repeatedly demonstrated critical lapses in judgment and failed to perform at the high standard we demand of our employees,” Rees said.

In the suit, Meyers claims Delpani’s tirades and tormenting eventually became outright bullying.

Meyers described one incident in October, when he allegedly was forced by Delpani to act as a human easel during a high-level meeting.

Meyers says he was instructed to hold a whiteboard, which covered his entire upper torso and head, for approximately 30 minutes.

He saw this as a demeaning gesture, he says, especially since he was supposed to be part of the leadership team.

Stress from the ordeal forced Meyers into the hospital with chest pains, the lawsuit says. He said he was fired on Dec. 10.

In his suit, he is demanding unspecified punitive and compensatory damages.

Attorneys for Meyers were unavailable Wednesday for comment.

Popular shampoos contain toxic chemicals linked to nerve damage

real hair truthResearchers at the National Institutes of Health have found a correlation between an ingredient found in shampoos and nervous system damage. The experiments were conducted with the brain cells of rats and they show that contact with this ingredient called methylisothiazoline, or MIT, causes neurological damage.

Which products contain this chemical compound MIT? Head and Shoulders, Suave, Clairol and Pantene Hair Conditioner all contain this ingredient. Researchers are concerned that exposure to this chemical by pregnant women could put their fetus at risk for abnormal brain development. In other people, exposure could also be a factor in the development of Alzheimer’s disease and other nervous system disorders.

The chemical causes these effects by preventing communication between neurons. Essentially, it slows the networking of neurons, and since the nervous system and brain function on a system of neural networks, the slowing of this network will suppress and impair the normal function of the brain and nervous system.

These finding were presented December 5th at the American Society for Cell Biology annual meeting.

I have frequently warned readers about the dangers of using brand-name personal care products. The vast majority of these products contain toxic chemical compounds like MIT that contribute to cancer, liver disorders and neurological diseases. In fact, this chemical, MIT, is just one of dozens of such chemicals that are found in personal care products.

Why are these dangerous products allowed to remain on the market? Because the FDA, which is responsible for regulating these products, spends almost no time, money or effort actually investigating the safety of such products. Instead, the FDA spends the vast majority of its time approving new prescription drugs rather than protecting the public against the dangers from such drugs or personal care products like cleansers, shampoo’s, soaps, deodorants and fragrance products.

In fact, it may surprise you to learn that manufacturers can put practically any chemical they want into shampoos, even if it is a hazardous chemical listed in the RTECS database of toxicity and even if it is considered a toxic waste chemical by the EPA. The FDA allows all sorts of chemicals to be used in these products including chemicals that are known carcinogens and that contribute to liver failure and nervous system disorders. How’s that for protecting public health?

If you thought prescription drugs were dangerous, just take a look at the toxic chemicals found in personal care products used by virtually all Americans every single day. Americans bathe themselves in toxic chemicals and they do it by buying and using products made by brand name companies that have premier shelf positioning at convenience stores, grocery stores and discount clubs.

One of the more curious personal care products on the market is Herbal Essences Shampoo by Clairol. Personally, I think this product is a joke because it’s trying to exploit the word “herbal” to imply that the shampoo is healthy, even though it is primarily made with the same ingredients as other popular shampoos. The first three ingredients, for example, are: water, sodium laureth, and sodium laurel sulfate. Big deal, huh? You can find the same three ingredients in 99-cent shampoo at Wall-Mart. Plus, the product contains all sorts of other ingredients that I personally would never allow to touch my skin (like methylchloroisothiazolinone, if you can believe there’s actually a chemical with a name that long). Think the color of the shampoo is from the herbs? Think again. Three other ingredients in the shampoo are Yellow #5, Orange #4 and Violet #2.

In other words, this is a shampoo product purchased by naive consumers, in my opinion. People who really know herbs and natural products can only laugh at a product like this. Want a real shampoo? Buy Olive Oil Shampoo from Heritage Products, available at most natural health stores.

The bottom line to all of this, though, is that every week, it seems like we see a new announcement about some toxic chemical found in personal care products that is related to either cancer or neurological disorders. And yet week after week these products are being sold by retailers and consumed in large quantities by the American people who remain oblivious to the real damage these products are causing to their health.

Once again, the solution here is to protect yourself by learning the truth about these products and switching to products made with safe ingredients. There are safe shampoos, safe soaps, safe laundry detergents, dish washing liquids and even deodorant products. You don’t have to expose yourself to toxic chemicals to take care of personal hygiene, because whether you agree with it or not, these disease-causing chemicals are going to remain quite legal in the use of personal care products for many years to come. Why? You can bet that the manufacturers of these products will fight against any attempt to regulate or outlaw these toxic chemicals. That’s because the chemicals are convenient for such manufacturers. It’s much the same way in which food manufacturers use sodium nitrate in bacon and other packaged meats. It’s all about their convenience rather than protecting your health.

So, here’s the idiot test for today: if I was standing on a street corner with a bottle of colored liquid, and I told you that liquid contained a toxic chemical that caused neurological disorders, Alzheimer’s disease and birth defects, would you buy that product from me and scrub it into your scalp under warm water?

Of course not. But if you’re buying these popular shampoo products, that’s exactly what you’re doing right now. Such is the power of brand marketing in America.

Busted we win! Unilever for breach of warranty, violation of consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices pays up!

realhairtruth.comI love it, I love it. Busted for whatever the lawyers could get, they got in full from Unilever!. According to documents filed Friday in Illinois federal court, Unilever United States Inc. has agreed to pay $10.2 million to settle a class action lawsuit accusing it of marketing and selling a Suave-brand hair treatment that causes significant hair loss.  The Suave Keratin class action lawsuit was initially filed in August 2012 on behalf of a class of consumers who purchased or used Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit, a product that was recalled in May 2012. The plaintiffs alleged that the product included dangerous ingredients that caused injuries, and that Unilever failed to properly inform consumers about the proper way to use the product to avoid injury.  During this time frame we at the “Real Hair Truth/Jotovi Designs Inc.” watched closely all the litigations that went forward with this class action lawsuit.  And passed along any and all emails we received from consumers to the appropriate law firms representing the clients involved.  Jotovi Designs Inc. was also used as a avenue for any and all complaints within the professional beauty industry, working hand in hand with consumers and professionals directing them to the proper law firms involved with the plaintiffs.  Now trust me my friends that is just penny’s to them not even nickels or dimes at all. They are a large corporation will it hurt them, “NO” not at all.  These large manufacturers are always in court. Look at L’Oreal, the mother of all lawsuits does it hurt them “No”. They always find a way to push the envelope, this is just a part of there corporate lives. No biggy to them.  The consumer and professional are the ones who get hurt. And trust me the so-called professional beauty industry does not care to inform there industry of these deviate practices. They will actually support these company’s. Basically because they need there money to survive. They cannot do it on there own.

On the Unilever website the company claims that. “Our brands play a major part in helping us achieve our sustainable living aims of helping more than a billion people improve their health and well-being; halving the environmental footprint of our products and sourcing 100% of our agricultural raw materials sustainably”.  Really?

Unilever is a major force in the beauty/cosmetics industry with household names as, Dove, Axe, Lux, Pond’s, Sunsilk, Tresemme, and who could also forget the beauty industry TONI&GUY that you can buy anywhere and beauty professionals will hail the product. Knowing full well they have no exclusive of the product what so ever. But they will sell it in there salons. And buy there tickets to there hair shows supporting TONI&GUY. But that’s another story in itself. The Suave Keratin class action lawsuit asserted claims against Unilever for breach of warranty, violation of consumer fraud and deceptive trade practices statutes and unjust enrichment arising from the manufacture, advertising and sale of the Suave Keratin Infusion smoothing kit. According to the plaintiffs’ motion supporting preliminary approval of the class action settlement, between 225,000 and 260,000 smoothing kits were sold.

Under the terms of the proposed Suave Keratin class action settlement, Unilever will pay $10 million to establish two settlement funds: a reimbursement fund and a personal injury fund. The $250,000 reimbursement fund will be available to Class Members who purchased a Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit, providing a $10 refund for the past purchase of the product.

The class action settlement injury fund will provide relief to Class Members who suffered bodily injuries to their hair or scalp as a result of using the Suave keratin treatment. Class Members who incurred expenses for hair treatment but who no longer have receipts for their expenditures will be eligible to receive up to $40 per claimant. Class Members who have receipts from their treatments will be eligible to receive up to $800 per claimant for their expenses. Class Members who suffered significant bodily injury to their hair or scalp will be eligible to receive up to $25,000 per claim.

real hair truth.comDuring the filming of my next documentary “The Beautiful Lies”, I received numerous emails for consumers who used this product. Writing to me the causes, and health hazards they experienced with this product.

” Dear Mr. Kellner, I too used this product and fried my hair…4 haircuts later still having issues with dry hair and itchy scalp. Any ideas on what I need to do to promote good hair health?”

” Dear Joseph Kellner,I found this email when reading about the horrible suave keratin product. I haven’t developed any health issues that I know of but my hair continues to fall out. I have had at least 10-12 inches cut off in the last 5-6 months and my hair used to be thick and is now just so thin and horrible feeling. Anything that can be done?”

“I bought the treatment on 3/23/12 from Wal-Mart and I used it a week later.  I have previously used Sally’s brand about 8 months prior so I knew what I was doing and I read the directions correctly.  Not even a week after I used the Suave brand, my hair got considerably lighter, which has never happened and my hair started to fall out.  Even now, every time I was my hair, more of it breaks and I am losing it by the handfuls.  I only use the treatments because after I had my daughter, my hair got wavy and thicker only in the back and I wanted an easier way to maintain my hair.  The treatment I used before worked wonders and seeing as Sauvé’s was a whole lot cheaper, I took a chance.  I know it is not supposed to make it straight, but it is supposed to make it easier to straighten, and this did not do as it was supposed to.  I saw the recall at my local CVS and wanted to know what I am supposed to do from here?  Thanks for your time.”

“I used this kit twice the first time my tightly curled hair was soft shiny the second time at first  I didn’t see any change in my then a couple of weeks after my hair started coming out by the handfuls it took me three years to get the growth I had now all Ivan do is cut it all off and do intensive conditioning treatments .something should be done to suave for the damage it has done to my hair.”

“I to had a bad experience with this product. My hairdresser called their 1800 # to let them know the damage that their product had done to my hair. It’s taken 6 months to get it back to almost normal. This has cost me a lot of money. Another dissatisfied customer”.

“I just used this product a few days ago and my hair is also fried. And when I went to the store to try to find a deep renewing conditioner the product was still on the shelf! I don’t know what to do with my hair at this point. I’ve been trying to nurse it back to life with coconut oil and mayonnaise but it still isn’t enough. Help?!”

Help it has been 4 months for my hair and it continues to break off and is fried.  It seems like it is getting worse not better.  I have spent over $2000 and yet I am still struggling.  No one is responding to my letters Unilever, Suave or Kroger. I tried to join a class action lawsuit with Wasserman, Comden, Casselman& Esensten but they have not contacted me back yet either.  The $12 is not sufficient and my current professional stylist believes it will be at least another year before my hair is back to normal if ever.  I can not afford this!! Is there any hope we will get some resolve from the company.  Please someone help!! This is truly a nightmare and not only has it ruined my hair but my personal life, my professional life and my personal well-being have all been severely compromised. Any information that you might have regarding where I might go next would be greatly appreciated.”

The Suave Keratin settlement will also resolve several similar class action lawsuits that were filed in Kentucky and California.

The Suave Keratin class action settlement agreement was reached after nearly 18 months of litigation and lengthy mediation sessions with former U.S. District Judge Wayne Andersen. According to the court documents, the plaintiffs believe that the settlement agreement is “fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interests of the Named Plaintiffs and the putative Settlement Class. Unilever, denying wrongdoing of any nature and without admitting liability, has agreed to the settlement terms in order to address claims brought by consumers of Unilever products, and in order to avoid the burdens of continuing discovery expenses and litigation.”

The plaintiffs are represented by Marvin A. Miller, Lori A. Fanning and Andrew Szot of Miller Law LLC; Peter Safirstein, Christopher S. Polaszek and Elizabeth S. Metcalf of Morgan & Morgan PC; and Jana Eisinger of Law Office of Jana Eisinger PLLC.

The Suave Keratin Infusion Class Action Lawsuit is Sidney Reid, et al. v. Unilever United States Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-06058, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

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].

2013 In Review For the Real Hair Truth Organization/Jotovi Designs Inc

TheRealHairTruthLogo (1)mediumsize

The blog (The Real Hair Truth)/organization (Jotovi Designs) did well this past year.  The “TRUTHFUL”  voice for the industry will always be here on this page. The truth of the industry will always be written and told by me. Even though you will not find it in Modern Salon, PBA, Salon Galaxy,  Hairbrained.me, ETC.  And my films will voice the truth of the industry, ‘The Real Hair Truth, The Beautiful Lies”. Thank you everyone for your support the last 7 years. We have did it on our own without the help of industry magazines, websites, or cosmetic brands.

Jotovi Designs Inc.

We have funded our books and films on our own and will continue to do so.  Jotovi Designs Inc. is not looking for any help financially from any beauty/cosmetic industry brands and will continue to do so!  The organization continues to help professionals in the industry and will continue to do so! This year will be the release of the second documentary called “Beautiful Lies”.  I thank everyone for their continued support and may all have a wonderful New Year!

Best Regards

Joseph Kellner

Here’s an excerpt:

The concert hall at the Sydney Opera House holds 2,700 people. This blog was viewed about 19,000 times in 2013. If it were a concert at Sydney Opera House, it would take about 7 sold-out performances for that many people to see it.

Click here to see the complete report.