The sulfate-free WEN hair care products by Chaz Dean have an ardent following of consumers who are seeking more natural alternative to hair cleaning solutions.

However, according to a new class action lawsuit, these popular hair care products allegedly cause hair loss, scalp damage, and other complications.

Over 200 women from 40 states have joined a class action lawsuit against WEN by Chaz Dean and infomercial company Guthy-Renker in California federal court.

Each of these women similarly allege that WEN products caused damage to their hair, including hair loss, bald sports, hair shafts breaking, scalp irritation, and rash.

WEN Hair Loss Allegations

According to legal documents, class member Amy F. had bought the WEN Sweet Almond Mint basic kit in January 2014 and suffered substantial hair loss within two weeks of using the product.

Even after she stopped using the product, her hair continued to fall out for three weeks and eventually ended up losing almost a quarter of her hair.

Reportedly, Amy had tried various methods to regrow her hair, spending a large amount of money on vitamins and hair extensions to remedy the damage.

Court documents indicate that Amy’s WEN class action lawsuit is only the beginning of complaints against the hair care line, stating that the number of potential plaintiffs could range in the “thousands or tens of thousands”.

Due to WEN’s popularity and reputation amongst the general public, these allegations have been shocking for many consumers. The WEN company website states that the product is “gentle enough for everyday use” and that the consumer can never use too much of it.

Additionally, a number of negative consumer reviews have circulated through WEN product forums, Amazon reviews, and other sources. In particular the WEN 5-in-1 Cleansing Conditioner has reportedly caused hair to fallout in handfuls, causing drain clogs and bald spots.

Not only did the product allegedly fail the consumers’ expectations, but Guthy-Renker had reportedly omitted negative online reviews about the product and even swept any comments describing hair loss from the WEN Facebook page.

At this point in time, it is unknown as to what is exactly causing the alleged hair loss events. However the complaints allege that WEN products may contain a certain caustic ingredient that damages hair follicles, as well as human allergens.

According to the American Dermatological Society, there could be a variety of reasons from genetics to using different styling tools like flat irons.

Guthy-Renker denies that the WEN products are responsible for the hair loss and all other allegations, pointing out that numbers other stylists are switching over to the WEN concoction method.

However, hairstylists point out that women with finer hair and more sensitive scalp, may need products with sulfate because the chemical keeps the scalp clean.

At this point, the plaintiffs’ legal counsel is having chemists test the WEN hair care products to help identify what may be causing the hair loss. Unfortunately this process may take some time, as the scientific process involved is fairly complicated.

Regardless of the purpose, consumers who used WEN hair care products and suffered hair loss are encouraged to consult with an experienced product liability attorney to see if they are eligible to join the WEN class action lawsuit.

The WEN Cleansing Conditioner Class Action Lawsuit is Amy Friedman v. Guthy-Renker LLC, Case No. 2:14-cv-MRP-AGR, in the U.S. District Court of Central California.

UPDATE: A $26.25 million settlement was proposed in a class action lawsuit alleging WEN hair products cause balding, hair loss, breakage and rashes. The settlement proposal will still need to be approved by a federal judge; however, the defendants in the class action, Chaz Dean Inc. and distributor Guthy-Renker, have reportedly agreed to the terms of the settlement.

UPDATE 2: The WEN Hair Care Products Class Action Settlement is now open! Click here to file a claim. 

ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.