Clarisonic Class Action Says Face Brushes Aren’t Waterproof

A L’Oreal USA customer has filed a class action lawsuit against the beauty company over claims that its Clarisonic face brush products are not waterproof. The plaintiff says this causes the brushes to malfunction and makes them unusable.

The Clarisonic defect class action lawsuit was filed by Nicole Marroquin who reportedly purchased a Clarisonic Mia 1 device for around $130 in December 2018 at an Ulta Beauty in her California hometown.

She says that she based her purchasing decision at least in part on the representation that the Clarisonic was waterproof. However, after she purchased it, she reportedly discovered that the product was not waterproof. She claims that in early 2020, her Clarisonic Mia 1 stopped working and would no longer charge. 

The plaintiff says that in making her purchasing decision, she reviewed labels and marketing material for the products, and based on these materials, determined that the product was waterproof. She also notes that Clarisonic offers a waterproof warranty, and will replace the devices if they fail. However, the company allegedly will only replace the device if it fails within a year of use.

However, the lawsuit states that many devices fail after not much more than a year of use. Unfortunately, these customers are left without recourse, says Marroquin.

Multiple customers have supposedly commented on the limited of the warranty. Marroquin cites one customer who said that she could not get a refund even within the warranty, because she did not have proof of when she purchased it. In her words, “seems that they should be able to do something about this. It’s an expensive item and it’s very unfortunate that it has died a 1/2 year later.” 

Despite offering a warranty, Clarisonic has allegedly failed to inform customers that the devices are prone to failure. According to Marroquin, the company has profited extensively as a result, because it charges up to $169 per each device. 

Allegedly, many consumers would not have purchased the devices if they had known that the Clarisonic devices were not waterproof. As a result, Marroquin seeks damages to compensate herself and other customers for financial injury they suffered.

The Clarisonic defect class action lawsuit asserts that the waterproof nature of the Clarisonic devices is a major selling point — the company touts that they can be used at the sink, in the shower, or in the bath.

The L’Oreal Clarisonic class action lawsuit then notes that L’Oreal’s marketing materials and customer service representatives express that the Clarisonic devices cannot be repaired, nor can the batteries be replaced.

Allegedly, this lack of ability to be repaired allowed the devices to be sealed so that they can be waterproof. The company reportedly touts that this is so that the device’s internal components cannot be damaged.

However, customers have reported that the devices often stop charging, and as a result, stop working entirely. Marroquin points to the bad waterproofing as the root of this problem, saying that water can enter the devices and compromise the battery.

Because there are so many customer filed complaints about the same thing, the Clarisonic waterproofing class action lawsuit says that L’Oreal is aware or should be aware that there is a consistent problem with the devices. She claims that the problems reported by consumers are not anomalous. 

The L’Oreal face brush defect class action lawsuit asserts that though L’Oreal offers a warranty on the Clarisonic devices, the company is still in breach of implied and express warranty because the devices were sent into the market with a defect.

In Marroquin’s words, the devices “could not pass without objection in the trade under the contract description” — that is, a waterproof device, she states.

The plaintiff goes on to argue that the company knowingly provided consumers with a useless product, and profited as a result. She also says that the company violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

She seeks not only damages for herself and other consumers, but seeks a declaratory judgement deeming the company’s conduct around the sale of the Clarisonic devices unlawful. 

Have you purchased a Clarisonic? Did you experience problems with the device? Share your experiences in the comments below.

Marroquin is represented by L. Timothy Fisher, Blair E. Reed, Brittany S. Scott, and Scott A. Bursor of Bursor & Fisher PA.

The L’Oreal Clarisonic Waterproof Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Nicole Marroquin v. L’Oreal USA Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-00790-NONE-SKO, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Baylor University Class Action Seeks Tuition Refunds

NJ Campaign Volunteer Katie Brennan Secures $1M Sexual Assault Settlement

BofA Class Action Alleges Deceptive Credit Card Autopay Options

US Foods Inc. Violates CA Labor Law, Says Employee Lawsuit