Tag: unilever

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.

Suave Keratin Infusion Class Action lawsuit Survives Dismissal!

445x119xlogo.jpg.pagespeed.ic.AkR1Dz6qQr

 

As I reported in the prior entry of my blog. According to the suit, Unilever also tried to get women who had reported side effects from the product to them to sign a release preventing them from suing the company, in exchange “for as little as $50.00 for a haircut.” Here is the Real Story provided by Top Class Actions.com who I feel is a reliable source for beauty/cosmetic legal news.

A Kentucky federal judge has rejected Unilever U.S. Inc.’s motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit accusing the company of falsely advertising that its Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30 Day Smoothing Kit products are safe, even though they allegedly caused hair to fall out.

Due to a lack of explicitly relevant Kentucky state case law, Judge Joseph H. McKinley relied heavily on a similar decision in district court in Illinois, especially regarding the women’s claims that the company breached express warranties. The women both alleged that they chose the product because it would only last 30 days and would result in smoother hair. Instead one woman suffered breakage and the other reportedly developed scalp burns after using the product.
Plaintiffs Terri Naiser and Jonnie Phillips allege in the Suave Keratin class action lawsuit, filed last year, that they purchased the kit because it was advertised as a keratin-based smoothing treatment instead of a chemical relaxer and its effects were supposed to last up to 30 days. The plaintiffs also claim they purchased the product because the label said that it did not contain formaldehyde and that the treatment was safe. Naiser and Phillips allege that all of these claims are untrue, and that the product contains an ingredient or combination of ingredients that cause hair to fall out.

While Unilever recalled the Suave Keratin Smoothing Kit in May 2012, the company allegedly failed to warn consumers about the side effects associated with it. In their class action lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that Unilever breached express and implied warranties and violated consumer protection laws by issuing a late and incomplete recall of the hazardous product.

Unilever sought to dismiss the Suave Professional Keratin class action lawsuit in its entirety, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to identify an “affirmation of fact or promise” by the company that was untrue. Unilever also claimed that the plaintiffs did not adequately argue that they relied on the advertisements when making the choice to purchase the product. Further, the company argued, there was no privity of contract under Kentucky law because the plaintiffs purchased the products from a retailer and not directly from the company itself. For these reasons, Unilever argued, the plaintiffs did not have standing to file the class action lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Joseph H. McKinley Jr. rejected Unilever’s motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit, finding that the plaintiffs adequately pled their case. He found that the plaintiffs sufficiently argued that the Suave Keratin Smoothing Kit was advertised as a “smoothing” product and not a “chemical relaxer,” a representation that could be considered an “affirmation of fact or promise” that could survive a motion to dismiss. He rejected Unilever’s argument that the representation was “mere puffery,” finding instead that it could be interpreted as a factual statement by a reasonable consumer.

Judge McKinley also found that the plaintiffs sufficiently argued that they relied on Unilever’s representation, believing they were purchasing a short-term hair smoothing product instead of a harsh chemical relaxer when they chose to buy the Suave Keratin Smoothing Kit. He also found that the class action lawsuit could proceed under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act because the plaintiffs adequately argued that Unilever engaged in false, misleading or deceptive practices.

The plaintiffs are represented by Richard A. Getty and Danielle Brown of the Getty Law Group PLLC; Peter Safirstein, Elizabeth S. Metcalf and Christopher S. Polaszek of Morgan & Morgan PC; and Jana Eisinger of Law Office of Jana Eisinger PLLC.

The Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30 Day Smoothing Kit Class Action Lawsuit is Terri Naiser, et al. v. Unilever United States Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-00395, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

This article was provided from the website Top Class Actions!

Modern Salon and Alison Shipley Bias reporting of the Beauty Industry!

Modern Salon will promote old news before it tells the true tales of its industry!
Modern Salon will promote old news before it tells the true tales of its industry!

In an industry  of False reporting, Deceptive labeling, and lack of representation of the Beauty Professionals in my industry. Reporting comes  from individual’s who have less than 5 years experience as a hairdresser and writer makes me want to puke. Especially when they report on issues that are over two years old and they are very partisan in their reporting.

In a recent article from the  comic book magazine Modern Salon edited and published by Vance publishing. There was an article written from a novice editor ALISON SHIPLEY, EDITOR OF FIRST CHAIR & MODERN SALON’S EXECUTIVE EDITOR OF SOCIAL MEDIA/VIDEO.(Can they give these kids a big enough title to stimulated there ego)? She reported that the Suave Keratin Treatment is as follows. Consumers are saying the product (Suave Keratin Treatment) caused them (The Consumer in the retail sector severe hair loss and other damages). It is also reported in MS. Shipley’s article, “hundreds of women nationwide are suing the manufacturer and designer of Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit, a hair treatment product designed to smooth frizzed hair”.  This is a story that I personally sent to Vance Publishing on 3/13/12 to take notice and let the industry know, but being a truth seeker they thought my reporting was to “Blunt”.. The company that produces the product is Unilever, who also produces the following product.

367651-unileverlogoII-1334956044-640-640x480

TIGI (hair care) You know the shit you buy for your salon and that is located in a grocery store.

But they mention no reference to Unilever. Why? Because they need their advertising dollar, their article is very basic and no links provided to the reader. Given that the poor kid probably thinks she is doing the industry a service. This was not reported by CNN, and this was a big enough story to tell the industry but as usual it got placed in the heap of (Don’t tell we need the advertising dollars from Unilever for our monthly comic book). And it also shows to the “Blinded Beauty Industry Sheep”, that your devoted manufacturer will sell you out to the commercial sector. This is a service that is done in my industry, they normally call the Keratin Treatments. These types of “Kits” for the consumer to do at home should only be done in the salon. I said that about hair color at home before but that fell on deaf ears to the sheep of the industry.

In my blog on July 9th 2012 I stated that, “Unilever may not be able to substantiate its claims. In addition, Unilever may have failed to inform consumers that the Product contains a chemical known as “Tetrasodium EDTA,” which is mainly synthesized from formaldehyde. Unilever also may have failed to inform consumers that the Product contains a chemical preservative known as “DMDM Hydantoin,” which is an antimicrobial formaldehyde releaser with the trade name Glydant. Formaldehyde has been classified as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing substance) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer and as a probable human carcinogen by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. An investigation is underway regarding Unilever’s marketing and advertising practices under the Suave brand name. Unilever states on their website that 160 million times a day, someone somewhere chooses a Unilever product. From feeding your family to keeping your home clean and fresh, our brands are part of everyday life”.

On Jezebel.com it is a reliable news website I highly regard for investigative reporting than the comic book Modern Salon., it is reported that in their article written on 10/15/2013 that.

Last year, a group of women filed a class action lawsuit against Unilever, the manufacturer of Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit, alleging that though the product was marketed at a Keratin smoother, it actually contains a formula to chemically relax the hair. According to the women, this caused everything from melted hair to scalp burns to increased and permanent hair loss and resulted in an aesthetic that would certainly not prompt anyone to GET THIS LOOK! And last week, a judge rejected Unilever’s request to dismiss the lawsuit, which means it will be going to trial.

According to the suit, Unilever also tried to get women who had reported side effects from the product to them to sign a release preventing them from suing the company, in exchange “for as little as $50.00 for a haircut.”

 Why don’t you report that Ms. Shipley? But I bet that Ms. Shipley was told not to go to far in this subject. Why? Because Unilever advertises in the comic book. “God forbid , lets just write about the situation and scratch the surface of the problem.” The sheep will not even notice it. Keep them young and dumb.  But lets not say UNILEVER!

TheRealHairTruthLogo

Try to do the right thing in life Shipley, I guarantee you will not go far. But you will sleep at night!

God forbid you lose your advertising dollars also!

Unsafe Cosmetics Owns The U.S.Government!

It is so amazing how little authority federal and state governments have over the estimated $30-billion annual cosmetics industry – even when there is compelling evidence that ingredients are dangerous. And are being sold to consumers left and right each and everyday. Did you know that under federal law, cosmetics companies don’t have to disclose chemicals or gain approval for the 2,000 products that go on the market every year. And removing a cosmetic from sale takes a battle in federal court. The same goes for entrepreneurs in my beauty industry. They will go and purchase a private label hair care/skin/makeup line, stamp their name on the line and promise you the world. Major manufacturers do this everyday, entrepreneurs in the beauty/cosmetic industry are well taught.

The Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, enacted in 1938, doesn’t require FDA approval before a beauty product is sold to the public or give the agency authority to recall a harmful product. One of the biggest topics in my next film/documentary “Beautiful LieS”, involves the hair straighteners in the  beauty industry.  Billions of pounds of chemicals are produced every year to make adhesives and binders for wood products, pulp and paper products, plastics, synthetic fibers and textile finishing.  

In the United States, more than eight billion personal care items, mostly cosmetics, are sold annually for an estimated $54-$60 billion. From 2004 to 2012, cosmetics imports nearly doubled, according to FDA and industry officials. In California, where manufacturers must report chemicals in consumer products that are known or suspected of causing cancer  or reproductive effects, 700 companies reported 17,060 cosmetic products as containing one or more hazardous chemical ingredients. Unlike drugs and medical devices, cosmetics are not subject to pre-market approval or notification. A manufacturer may use any ingredient provided it doesn’t adulterate the product and it is properly labeled – except for 10 types of ingredients, including chloroform, methylene chlorine and mercury, according to FDA regulations.

Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, the FDA doesn’t have recall authority; instead it must start enforcement proceedings in federal court to prove harm. Thats how it all starts. So if you think about mega cosmetics company’s such as P&G, Loreal, Unilever these company’s have considerable financial pockets to pay attorneys. And they will argue their case in court until kingdom come. “Beauty industry professionals think cosmetics are tested for safety. They are not. It’s not like pharmaceuticals or even pesticides where some data are required. All the same, people slather cosmetics directly on their bodies, and absorb them in creams, deodorants, fragrances and shampoos, and ingest them in lipstick and gloss”.

The industry is highly resistant to regulation, and it provides zero information on the chemicals in products. In August, Johnson & Johnson announced it was voluntarily removing some chemicals, including formaldehyde, from its products. By 2015, the company promised to get rid of 1,4 dioxane, which is a probable human carcinogen, and several chemicals linked to altered hormones, including phthalates, triclosan and parabens.  The cosmetics industry has petitioned the FDA to strengthen some regulations. The industry recognizes the law needs modernizing in the global marketplace.  An overarching goal, however, is to avoid piecemeal state rules!

It’s going to be a long, hard haul before anything can happen. The current laws have created a perfect storm for these companies to continue to get away with it. And as long as there pockets get deeper they will get away with all this. And you the consumer are on the short end of the stick. It should shock consumers to hear how little regulation there is over the production and sale of cosmetic products. That the entire burden of proof is on the federal government to prove that certain products are harmful is unacceptable: we need safeguards put in place that require manufacturers to test the safety of their products before they reach the shelves, so consumers and Beauty industry professionals are not subject to poisonous chemicals. At the very least, the labeling of these products should inform consumers about the risks they take by using them. When cosmetic companies are expected to regulate themselves, professionals and consumers lose. We need standards in place to make sure that corporations—whether they are financial institutions, oil companies, commercial fishing companies, or food production plants—behave responsibly and do not threaten our lives.

 

Real Hair Truth – The lawsuits still keep coming to Unilever!

Fourteen women — including two from North Texas and one from Houston — are suing Unilever, the maker of a product they claim caused permanent damage to their hair. “It transforms frizzy, unmanageable hair into hair that’s sleeker and easier to style,” said the commercial for the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit, which is no longer being sold. Tonja Millet of Midlothian said the product did the opposite of what it promised. “It melted my hair,” she said. “The hair was sticky. I couldn’t comb it. It felt like sandpaper. It was just awful.”

Millet, 45, said her naturally straight hair would sometimes turn slightly frizzy in humid weather. So in February she decided to try the straightening product, hoping it would help tame frizz during a trip to the beach over spring break. “Instead of straightening and smoothing it, it acted like a perm and kinked it,” she said. “I just sat in the bathroom and cried. I didn’t know what to do. “Millet said she called the product’s consumer hotline to complain, and was told she probably used the product incorrectly. A few days later, she went to her salon, where her stylist told her her hair had been “chemically melted.” “So that day we cut off 10 inches,” Millet said.

When she began looking online for more information about the product, she said she found some people who said it worked, but more who said it damaged their hair. She discovered a Facebook page devoted to angry consumers, and there are multiple postings on YouTube. Millet is now part of a lawsuit filed against Unilever. Dallas attorney Amy Davis represents Millet and 13 other women. “What the complaint is alleging is that by using certain images and certain wording, that Unilever made consumers believe this was a product free of harsh chemicals, when we believe it wasn’t,” Davis said. “The complaint says women experienced hair loss to the point of visible bald spots, terrible breakage, discoloration… some of them had injury or burning to the scalp.”The complaint will not reach class action status, Davis said, because not all of the women experienced the same results.

Unilever said its practice is not to comment on ongoing litigation. But a spokesperson stressed that when Suave began to receive “a greater-than-expected number of complaints about the Suave Professionals Keratin Infusion 30-Day Smoothing Kit,”  the cmopany discontinued the product and recalled it from retail stores. That was in May.

“We found the number and degree of consumer complaints to be unacceptable,” a company spokeswoman said. But she stressed, “Overall, consumer complaints represented a small percentage of the product shipped into the marketplace. Many consumers enjoyed the product and had very positive results.” Millet said she’s cut 12 to 13 inches off her hair since trying the Suave product in February.

“At the beginning I was like, ‘I’m just gonna hide out for the next year so nobody will see my hair,'”  she said. “I certainly wish I’d never done it. I really regret it.” “It’s about accountability,” she said of the legal action. “They didn’t take it off the market for months, even after they knew there were hundreds —   possibly thousands — of women affected the way I was… or even far worse.”

If you may have had a similiar occurence with this product please feel free to email me at and let us know. We can help lead you to the proper officials and offer you hair care advice for your hair free of charge!  joseph@josephkellner.com