Paparazzi Class Action Claims Jewelry Falsely Advertised as Lead-, Nickel-Free

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.

Paparazzi Toxic Heavy Metals Jewelry Class Action Lawsuit Overview: 

• Who: Tamie Hollins filed a class action lawsuit against Paparazzi, LLC. 
• Why: Hollins claims Paparazzi deceptively and misleadingly represented that its jewelry products don’t contain lead or nickel. 
• Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court. 

Paparazzi deceptively and misleadingly represented that its jewelry products are “lead-free and nickel-free,” a new class action lawsuit alleges. 

Plaintiff Tamie Hollins claims jewelry sold by Paparazzi actually contains “detectable levels of lead and nickel” in addition to other heavy metals. 

Paparazzi removed the “lead-free and nickel-free” representation from the company’s website between Nov. 20, 2021, and Jan. 9, 2022, according to the Paparazzi class action. However, many consumers had already purchased the jewelry with the belief that it was free of the metals.

A jewelry maker will use lead in its products to make them “more stable, brighten the paint or soften the plastic,” according to the Paparazzi class action. 

Toxic Lead In Paparazzi Jewelry Endangers Consumers’ Health, Class Action Claims

Hollins argues lead is “toxic” and can lead to adverse health effects such as anemia, organ failure and learning disabilities. 

Had consumers known Paparazzi’s jewelry products contained toxic heavy metals such as lead and nickel, Hollins claims, they would have neither purchased nor consumed them. 

In addition to lead and nickel, Hollins claims Paparazzi’s jewelry products also contain toxic heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium and antimony. 

Hollins claims Paparazzi is guilty of unjust enrichment and negligence and in violation of strict product liability and New York General Business Law. 

He wants to represent a nationwide class and New York subclass of consumers who have purchased a Paparazzi product when the company was making the allegedly false representations. 

Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial and requesting declaratory relief along with compensatory, incidental, consequential and punitive or exemplary damages for herself and all class members. 

A separate class action lawsuit was filed against Jared the Galleria of Jewelry owner Sterling Jewelers last year over claims the company inflates the weight of its diamonds. 

Have you purchased jewelry products from Paparazzi? Let us know in the comments! 

The plaintiff is represented by Gary E. Mason and Danielle L. Perry of Mason LLP and Jonathan Shub and Kevin Laukaitis of Shub Law Firm LLC. 

The Class Action Lawsuit is Hollins v. Paparazzi, LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00393, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Neutrogena, Aveeno Sunscreen Carcinogens $1.75M Class Action Settlement
• Neuriva Supplements False Ad $8M Class Action Settlement
• Restasis Eye Drops $30M Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit Settlement
• Palmer’s Stretch Mark Lotion False Ad $3M Class Action Settlement