Schick class action alleges dermaplaning tools unsafe for at-home use

Schick class action overview:

• Who: Consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Edgewell Personal Care Company and Schick US.
• Why: The plaintiffs allege Schick’s dermaplaning products are falsely advertised as safe for at-home use.
• Where: The Schick class action was filed in Connecticut federal court.

A new class action lawsuit accuses Schick of falsely advertising its dermaplaning tools as safe for at-home use.

Plaintiffs Jillian Frederick and Ching Yu Yang filed the class action complaint against Edgewell Personal Care Company and Schick US on Oct. 3 in Connecticut federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws.

Dermaplaning, a popular skin care treatment, has gained traction for its ability to exfoliate the skin and remove fine facial hair, leaving a smooth and radiant complexion, the plaintiffs allege.

In response to its rising popularity, Schick began selling dermaplaning devices directly to consumers, advertising them as tools that provide “expert” care at home, the Schick class action lawsuit says.

However, the plaintiffs argue that using these tools without professional supervision poses significant risks, including cuts, infections and long-term dermatological damage.

Schick’s marketing claims allegedly conflict with medical guidance

The plaintiffs allege that Schick’s marketing misleads consumers into believing they can safely use the tools at home despite warnings from medical professionals that the procedure should be performed by trained aestheticians or dermatologists.

The plaintiffs allege that they purchased Schick’s dermaplaning devices based on the company’s misleading advertising and were unaware of the potential risks.

They claim they would not have bought the products had they known the truth and argue that the company’s failure to disclose these risks constitutes false advertising and a breach of consumer trust.

The class action lawsuit seeks to represent anyone in the United States who purchased Schick’s dermaplaning devices.

The plaintiffs are suing for violations of California and New York consumer laws and for breach of warranty and contract. They are seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial.

In separate class action, a customer is suing Edgewell Personal Care Brands alleging the company falsely advertised its Wet Ones antibacterial hand wipes as hypoallergenic.

What do you think of the allegations made in this Schick class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by James E. Miller, Laurie Rubinow, Rrita Osmani and Natalie Finkelman Bennet of Miller Shah LLP and Zachary Arbitman and George A. Donnelly of Feldman Shepherd Wohlgelernter Tanner Weinstock & Dodig LLP.

The Schick class action lawsuit is Frederick, et al. v. Edgewell Personal Care Company, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-01663, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Hyundai sued in class action over defective Palisade airbags
• Microsoft Teams class action claims company illegally collects voice data
• Vistaprint class action claims company sends emails with misleading subject lines
• Rocket Mortgage class action alleges illegal steering to in-house mortgage and title services