St. Ives Apricot Scrub Poses ‘Safety Risk,’ Class Action Claims

Consumers are asking a federal court judge to certify a class action lawsuit that claims St. Ives Apricot Scrub is “an unreasonable safety risk” and is “not safe for anyone to use.”

Plaintiffs Kaylee Browning and Sarah Brasile urged U.S. District Judge Andrew J. Guilford to certify their Class by arguing that a class action lawsuit is the most logical way to proceed with claims regarding the safety of St. Ives face scrub.

“Common questions of fact predominate because plaintiffs’ and the class members’ claims each arise from defendant’s failure to disclose that St. Ives Apricot Scrub injures facial skin and the unmerchantability of St. Ives Apricot Scrub as a result of those injuries,” the plaintiffs wrote.

“This question of fact is subject to common proof for all class members and predominates over any other questions raised in this action.”

Plaintiffs seek to represent five Classes in total. Two of the Classes will cover consumers who purchased St. Ives face scrub in California and New York after 2012 and 2013, respectively. The other three Classes will cover the same consumers in larger groups of states.

The St. Ive’s class action lawsuit seek a full refund, statutory damages, and monetary damages. As each of the Classes may be protected by different laws, statutory damages may vary between Classes.

In their St. Ives class action, Browning and Brasile argue that walnut shell fragments contained in the face scrub are too large and jagged to sufficiently exfoliate the skin and instead can cause small cuts and damage.

“Not a single unit of St. Ives sold during the class period contained a disclosure that use of St. Ives as directed could cause skin damage,” the consumers said in their recent motion for Class certification. “But the problem, as detailed herein, is that use of St. Ives as directed does cause skin damage, rendering the product to be unfit for its intended purpose as a facial scrub.”

To support their claims, Browning and Brasile reference two studies done by professionals in the dermatology and cosmetic surgery field.

The first study was conducted by Mark Nestor, a voluntary associate professor at University of Miami Leonard Miller School of Medicine’s Department of Dermatology and Cutaneous Surgery.

In his study, Nestor reportedly found that “the use of St. Ives as directed, led to a compromised skin barrier function and impaired stratum corneum in study participants.” The stratum corneum is the portion of the skin which acts as a protective layer, protecting from dehydration and infections.

The second study was conducted by Bruce E. Katz, the director of Mount Sinai Hospital’s cosmetic surgery and laser clinic and a clinical professor at Mt. Sinai School of Medicine.

Katz found similar results as Nestor, but came to the blunt conclusion that “St. Ives presents and unreasonable safety risk and is not safe for anyone to use.”

The consumers are represented by Scott A. Bursor, Joshua D. Arisohn and Yitzchak Kopel of Bursor & Fisher PA.

The St. Ives Apricot Scrub Class Action Lawsuit is Browning, et al. v. Unilever United States Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-­02210, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.