Plaintiffs File Amended L’Oréal Hair Product Class Action Lawsuit

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Several months after a federal judge rejected an “unfair” class action settlement over claims that L’Oréal USA Inc. misleadingly labeled some of its hair products, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint they believe addresses the judge’s concerns about fairness to Class Members.

In November, U.S. District Judge John Bates refused to give final approval to a class action settlement related to the allegedly misleading salon-only claims after finding that the settlement terms were unfair to a majority of Class Members. Under the terms of the proposed L’Oréal class action settlement, not only were Class Members not offered any monetary benefits, but they were also precluded from seeking damages as a Class, even if they were unaware of the settlement.

On Jan. 3, Judge Bates gave plaintiffs until Feb. 5 to file an amended class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, which requests monetary damages for Class Members, on Jan. 27. A status conference has been rescheduled for March 14, 2014.

The L’Oréal hair product class action lawsuit was initially filed in April 2013 by a group of consumers who claim that L’Oréal falsely labeled some of its hair products as “for sale only in professional beauty salons,” “Exclusive to Kératase Consultant Salons,” “Available Only at Fine Salons & Spas,” and “exclusive salon distribution,” when consumers can actually purchase these products at major U.S. retailers such as CVS, Target, Kmart, Walgreens and Kroger. They claim that they would not have paid a premium for these products had they known they were available at mass retailers.

“By labeling these products as salon-only, Defendant has created a demand for them,” the amended L’Oréal hair product lawsuit says. “The cachet attached to a ‘salon-only’ product induces consumers to pay a premium for Defendant’s products under the false pretense that they are distinct from non-salon products when they are, in fact, available for purchase at mass retailers as are non-salon products.”

Their original L’Oréal class action lawsuit sought monetary damages for Class Members, but the claim was dropped during the settlement negotiations.

In filing the amended L’Oréal hair product lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of consumers who purchased Matrix, Kératase, Pureology and/or Redken products manufactured by L’Oréal for household use from a salon. In the alternative, they are seeking state-specific classes of individuals from the District of Columbia, California, Minnesota, New Jersey, Illinois and Florida who purchased the products for household use.

The amended class action lawsuit seeks restitution for all Class Members nationwide, including a full refund of the purchase price of the L’Oréal products or a minimum $50 reimbursement for members of the New York Class.

The plaintiffs are represented by Clayton D. Halunen, Susan M. Coler and Melissa W. Wolchansky of Halunen & Associates; Azra Z. Mehdi of The Mehdi Firm; and Michael Lieder of Mehri & Skalet PLLC.

The L’Oréal Hair Product Class Action Lawsuit is Richardson, et al. v. L’Oréal USA Inc., Case No. 13-cv-00508-JDB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.