Proganix Class Action Says Repair Products Can’t ‘Repair’ Hair as Labeled

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.

A woman from New York says the labeling on Proganix Repair hair care products falsely promises that those products can repair damaged hair.

According to plaintiff Ashlei McBride, defendant Vogue International LLC has falsely and deceptively labeled its Proganix line of hair products in an effort to mislead consumers.

She claims this line of shampoo, conditioner and hair oil contains no ingredients that are actually capable of repairing hair once it’s been damaged.

The result of this alleged mislabeling is that Vogue International has been able to sell Proganix Repair products to thousands of consumers who would not have bought them if they knew the truth, according to McBride.

McBride’s Proganix class action lawsuit puts three specific products at issue:

• Proganix Vitamin E + Ceramide 3 Repair Shampoo Healing + Anti-Breakage
• Proganix Vitamin E + Ceramide 3 Repair Conditioner Healing +Anti-Breakage
• Proganix Vitamin E + Ceramide 3 Repair Reparative Oil + Anti-Breakage

Also included are any other Proganix hair care products whose labels claim the ability to “repair” hair.

The labeling on these product features the word “repair” in big letters across the front of the package. Advertising copy on the label represents that the products can prevent breakage and “repair[] split ends and frizziness.”

But a look at the products’ ingredients lists show they contain nothing that can actually repair hair, according to this Proganix class action lawsuit. McBride says the keratin protein that makes up hair can’t be repaired once it is broken, since it is made up of dead, inorganic matter.

Protein-based ingredients like hydrolyzed wheat protein may be able to fill the gaps temporarily, but it does not effect actual repair of the hair, she says. These products can create the appearance of healthy hair, but that appearance is allegedly just a temporary illusion, McBride argues.

McBride says she was misled by the labeling at issue in September 2017, when she paid almost $13 for a bottle of Proganix Repair hair oil. She says she relied on the defendant’s promises that it would repair her hair. Had she known otherwise, she says, she would not have bought the product, or would have been willing to pay significantly less for it.

The plaintiff says this false advertising allows the defendant to charge a premium price for Proganix Repair products. Ounce for ounce, Proganix Repair Reparative Oil costs more than four times more than competitor products Palmer’s Moisturizing Hair Oil and Garnier Fructis Triple Nutrition Marvelous Oil Hair Elixir.

McBride proposes to represent a plaintiff Class that would cover all persons in the U.S. who purchased Proganix Repair products at retail during the applicable statutory limitations period.

She seeks an award of restitution and disgorgement of related profits, and also a court order requiring the defendant to identify persons affected by the alleged false advertising and to pay them accordingly. She also seeks an award of attorney fees and court costs, with pre- and post-judgment interest on all amounts.

McBride’s attorneys are C.K. Lee and Anne Seelig of Lee Litigation Group PLLC.

The Proganix Repair False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is McBride v. Vogue International Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-07594, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.