Estee Lauder Advanced Night Repair Class Action Lawsuit Dismissed

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.

On Tuesday, Estee Lauder Cos. Inc. successfully argued to dismiss the class action lawsuit that alleged the skin care company falsely advertised the restorative qualities of its Advanced Night Repair Product.

Lead plaintiff Donna Tomasino alleged in her class action lawsuit that the company used a deceptive study to market their product as able to restore DNA and neutralize the effects of the sun. However, Estee Lauder pointed out in its motion to dismiss the false advertising lawsuit that Tomasino also said she would no longer purchase the product in dispute, and argued that she lacked standing to represent the class of purchasers she alleged were harmed by the marketing campaign.

U.S. District Court Judge Edward R. Korman agreed with Estee Lauder, stating “the plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed because she has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. … To survive a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs’ complaint must allege ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”

“Tomasino alleges ‘specific statements that form the basis of [her] claims,’ including the defendants’ alleged claims that the ANR products have ‘certain age-negating effects on the human skin,’ and that the products can ‘repair DNA,’ ‘support the natural synchronization of skin’s repair and protection processes,’ ‘repair the appearance of past damage,’ ‘address the visible damaging effects of environmental assaults . . . before they become permanent,’ ‘prevent future damage,’ and ‘reduce lines and wrinkles by 68%,’” continues the judge in his order dismissing the Estee Lauder class action lawsuit. “While she insists that all of these claims are ‘false, deceptive, or misleading misrepresentations,’ the only factual support she provides in support of her assertion is that ‘the ANR Products do not and cannot live up to the efficacy claims made by Estee Lauder because none of their ingredients can provide the promised results.’”

Judge Korman concludes, “While the claim that the products cannot work is a valid theory of affirmatively misleading advertising, Tomasino ‘fail[s] to allege what the specific ingredients in each product are and that these ingredients lack the ability to improve skin appearance.’ She also fails to specify whether all of Estee Lauder’s allegedly misleading claims were made with respect to each ANR product, and if not, with respect to which products they were made.” The judge similarly dismissed the plaintiff’s claims about Estee Lauder’s patents and product tests.

Judge Korman also dismissed the plaintiff’s claims for breach of warranty and unjust enrichment noting, “The Amended Complaint does not contain an allegation that the plaintiff notified the defendants of a breach of warranty.” Judge Korman did grant the plaintiff leave to amend her false advertising class action lawsuit for these claims, however.

Lead plaintiff, Donna Tomasino, is represented by Caroline F. Bartlett, James E. Cecchi and Zachary S. Bower of Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello PC and Jay W. Eisenhofer, Robert G. Eisler and Adam J. Levitt of Grant & Eisenhofer PA.

The Estee Lauder False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Donna Tomasino v. The Estee Lauder Cos. Inc., et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-04692, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.