Christina Spicer  |  September 12, 2014

Category: Consumer News

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.

clarins-tonic-body-treatment-oilClarins USA Inc. on Friday lost its motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit accusing the company of deceptively marketing its expensive beauty products using misleading and improperly conducted scientific studies.

Lead plaintiff Elisa Garcia alleged in the class action lawsuit that Clarins violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by using supposedly scientific studies to market its beauty products, including Clarins’ Body Lift Cellulite Control cream and Vital Light Night Revitalizing Anti-Aging cream. The plaintiff alleged in her lawsuit that Clarins falsely compared its products to pharmaceutical products, saying implicitly that use of Clarins products would affect the structure or function of the human body, and also that Clarins sales associates falsely advertised that their products were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Garcia claimed that she purchased two Clarins product for $90 each based on their allegedly misleading scientific studies that included flawed data and misleading interpretations of the results, including that ingredients in Clarins Vital Light Night Revitalizing Anti-Aging cream would “reorganize weak collagen into a resilient cushion that beams light up to the skin’s surface,” according to the lawsuit. The Clarins lawsuit includes statements from the Mayo Clinic and the National Institutes of Health noting that no existing topical creams could be shown to get rid of cellulite or wrinkles. The lawsuit alleges that the scientific studies Clarins used in its marketing campaign highlighted purported scientific studies and clinical trials that included results from trials that had too few participants to be effective, or were based on participants who were cherry-picked to yield specific results.

U.S. District Court Judge Paul C. Huck rejected Clarins’ argument that the class action lawsuit should be dismissed because the plaintiff’s claims only concerned the quality of the allegedly misleading scientific studies which Clarins said do not meet the pleading standard under federal law. Huck pointed out that the plaintiff’s complaint included statements from medical institutes that directly contradicted Clarins’ claims and “[a]lthough the statements by the Mayo Clinic and the NIH do not specifically mention Clarins products or their ingredients … those statements are sufficient at this stage in the proceedings to encompass Clarins products.”

The judge continued, “There is more here than just plaintiff’s own uninvestigated belief that defendants’ marketing statements are false.” However, Huck rejected the plaintiff’s claims related to the Vital Light and Body Lift collections, pointing out that the plaintiff hadn’t actually bought the product herself. The plaintiff’s claims for breach of express warranty were dismissed by Huck, as well, because the plaintiff did not provide notification to Clarins of the breach of warranty claims before filing the class action. Huck has given the plaintiff leave to amend her complaint regarding warranty claims, however.

The plaintiff, Elise Garcia, is represented by Adam M. Schachter and Freddy Funes of Gelber Schachter & Greenberg PA, James E. Cecchi, Caroline F. Bartlett, and Zachary S. Bower of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC and Brian H. Brick of Napoli Bern Ripka Shkolnik LLP.

The Clarins Misleading Marketing Class Action Lawsuit is Garcia v. Clarins USA Inc. et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-21249, in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida.

UPDATE: A jury trial has been set for Feb. 22, 2016 in the Miami Division before Judge Paul C. Huck.

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.

2 thoughts onClarins’ Bid to Toss Deceptive Marketing Class Action Denied

  1. Angelica Romero says:

    Add me

  2. cynthia whidbee says:

    add me

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. By submitting your comment and contact information, you agree to receive marketing emails from Top Class Actions regarding this and/or similar lawsuits or settlements, and/or to be contacted by an attorney or law firm to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you if you qualify. Required fields are marked *

Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source that reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on the status of any class action settlement claim. You must contact the settlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regarding your claim status, claim form or questions about when payments are expected to be mailed out.