Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 1 of 43 Page ID #:44

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

GERAGOS & GERAGOS APC
MARK J. GERAGOS (SBN 108325)
BEN J. MEISELAS (SBN 277412)
Historic Engine Co. No. 28
644 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 625-3900
Facsimile: (213) 232-3255
geragos@geragos.com
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
LORI G. FELDMAN (pro hac vice to be filed)
lfeldman@zlk.com
ANDREA CLISURA (pro hac vice to be filed)
aclisura@zlk.com
COURTNEY E. MACCARONE (pro hac vice to be filed)
cmaccarone@zlk.com
30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
Counsel for Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves
And All Others Similarly Situated

14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SHARON MANIER, DOROTHY RILES,
17 and LAKEYTRA NERO, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
18 Situated,
Plaintiffs,

19
20

v.

21 L’ORÉAL USA, INC. and
22 SOFT SHEEN-CARSON, LLC,
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-cv-6886
CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
AND EQUITABLE RELIEF
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs Sharon Manier, Dorothy Riles, and Lakeytra Nero (“Plaintiffs”), by
and through their attorneys, make the following allegations pursuant to the
investigation of their counsel and based upon information and belief, except as to

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 2 of 43 Page ID #:45

1
2

NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.

This is a class action against L’Oréal USA, Inc. and Soft Sheen-

3

Carson, LLC (together, “L’Oréal” or “Defendants”) based on their formulation,

4

manufacture, marketing, and sale of a defective hair relaxer kit—the SoftSheen-

5

Carson Optimum Amla Legend No-Mix, No-Lye Relaxer (the “Amla Relaxer” or

6

the “Product”).

7

2.

Soft Sheen Products, Inc. was the nation’s largest African-American-

8

owned beauty products company until its acquisition by L’Oréal in 1998. Today,

9

using the SoftSheen-Carson brand, L’Oréal claims to continue the tradition of

10

providing “scientifically-advanced beauty tools” to African-American women with

11

products that are “safe, reliable and guaranteed to provide great results.”

12

3.

In 2013, operating as SoftSheen Carson and SoftSheen Carson

13

Laboratories, L’Oréal introduced the Amla Relaxer under the SoftSheen-Carson

14

Optimum Salon Haircare brand as a safe, “NO-LYE,” at-home hair relaxer

15

treatment for all hair types.

16

“Rejuvenating Ritual,” which would provide “fuller, silkier hair” and “respect of

17

hair fiber integrity,” most notably through its purportedly key ingredient Amla

18

Oil—a legendary, antioxidant rich oil derived from the Indian Amla superfruit.

19

4.

It claimed the Product was a nourishing,

These claims were far from the reality experienced by the thousands

20

of women who purchased the Amla Relaxer. A host of consumer complaints on

21

the internet, including L’Oréal’s own webpages, report that the Amla Relaxer

22

results in disturbing and distressing injuries including hair loss and breakage, as

23

well scalp irritation, blisters, and burns.

24

5.

In fact, the Product contains hardly any Amla Oil (or Phyllanthus

25

Emblica [Indian Gooseberry] Fruit Extract) at all. The true ingredients in the

26

Amla Relaxer are a dangerous mix of irritants and potentially toxic substances.

27
28

2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 3 of 43 Page ID #:46

1

6.

L’Oréal has known for years that its Product is dangerous and

2

defective—yet it has taken no action to warn the public, recall the Product, or

3

compensate the vast majority of its purchasers. Instead, it continues to falsely and

4

fraudulently promote the Product’s claimed safe and nourishing qualities, even

5

while quietly responding to certain online complaints with requests that the

6

individual call customer service with a reference number for help.

7

7.

Plaintiffs are among the many consumers who relied on Defendants’

8

promises to provide a rejuvenating, “No-Lye” relaxer that would strengthen and

9

nourish their hair. They and other women trusted Defendants to provide a safe and

10
11

effective product.
8.

Instead, when Dorothy Riles used the Product as intended and

12

instructed by Defendants, it left her with bald spots, as well as burns and then

13

scabs on her scalp. After using the Amla Relaxer, Ms. Riles was forced to wear a

14

wig for the first time in her life to cover her injuries. To date, she continues to

15

struggle with thin, unhealthy, and damaged hair as a result of her use of the

16

Product.

17

9.

18

The following images show Plaintiff’s hair shortly before and then

after her use of the Amla Relaxer.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 4 of 43 Page ID #:47

1

10.

Some of Plaintiff’s hair loss is visible in a close-up of the latter photo.

11.

The actual effects of the Product present a sad contrast to L’Oréal’s

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

claimed expertise “[a]s a leader of the multiethnic hair care industry” and in its

13

“attention to [the] specific needs of their consumers’ many types and textures of

14

hair,” as well as to its brand imagery, featuring celebrities such as Beyoncé and

15

Kelli Rowland.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

12.

Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable relief in this action individually

26

and on a class-wide basis for breach of express and implied warranties, fraud,

27

negligence, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the California Consumer Legal

28

4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 5 of 43 Page ID #:48

1

Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq., California’s Unfair

2

Competition Law (“UCL”), Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq., California’s False

3

Advertising Law (“FAL”), Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq., and the Illinois

4

Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“ICFA”), 815 Ill. Comp.

5

Stat. 505/1, et seq.

6
7

PARTIES
13.

Plaintiff Sharon Manier is a resident of the State of California, residing

8

in Riverside County, California. After viewing statements on Product packaging for

9

the Amla Relaxer regarding its purported safe and nourishing qualities, Plaintiff

10

purchased the Amla Relaxer from a Walmart in Moreno Valley, California in or

11

about July 2016. As a result of Defendants’ representations and omissions, Plaintiff

12

purchased the Product because she reasonably believed that the Product was safe

13

and effective, and would be gentler on her hair and skin as compared to a lye-based

14

relaxer. She relied on Defendants’ representations, in particular, that the Product

15

was “REJUVENATING” and would make her hair silkier and softer. Plaintiff

16

Manier would not have purchased the Amla Relaxer had she known of its propensity

17

to cause hair loss, burning, and blisters.

18

products, which had not caused hair loss or injury. Plaintiff used the Product as

19

directed by Defendants. Upon applying the Product, Plaintiff Manier immediately

20

experienced scalp irritation. She quickly washed out the Product and began to

21

notice significant hair loss. Plaintiff is currently wearing partial hair pieces to cover

22

up the areas of hair loss and is currently purchasing costly hair vitamins to help her

23

hair regrow.

24

14.

Plaintiff had previously used relaxer

Plaintiff Dorothy Riles is a resident of the State of Illinois, residing in

25

Cook County, Illinois. After viewing statements on Product packaging for the Amla

26

Relaxer regarding its purported safe and nourishing qualities, Plaintiff purchased

27

Amla Relaxer from a Walgreens in Chicago, Illinois in or about May 2015. As a

28

5
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 6 of 43 Page ID #:49

1

result of Defendants’ representations and omissions, Plaintiff purchased the Product

2

because she reasonably believed that the Product was safe and effective, and would

3

be gentler on her hair and skin as compared to a lye-based relaxer. Plaintiff would

4

not have purchased the Amla Relaxer had she known of its propensity to cause hair

5

loss, burning, and blisters. Plaintiff had previously used relaxer products, which had

6

not caused hair loss or injury.

7

directed by Defendants, including applying Defendants’ so-called “scalp protector.”

8

After using the product, Plaintiff experienced significant hair loss. As a result of her

9

use of the Product, she also experienced scalp burning and irritation and was left

10

with bald patches on her head, as well as scabs on her scalp. Plaintiff had not worn

11

a wig before, and was forced to wear a wig due to the significant hair loss she

12

experienced as a result of using the Product. Although Plaintiff’s burns have now

13

healed, her hair remains thin and she still occasionally wears a wig because of the

14

damage caused by the Product.

15

15.

Plaintiff followed the Product instructions, as

Defendant, L’Oréal USA, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with

16

headquarters at 575 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10017. It is a subsidiary of

17

the French cosmetics giant L’Oréal S.A., the world’s largest cosmetics company.

18

L’Oréal developed, marketed, distributed, and sold the Amla Relaxer through its

19

Consumer Products Division. It has deceptively marketed the Product under its

20

brands SoftSheen-Carson, SoftSheen-Carson Laboratories, and Optimum Salon

21

Haircare as part of its Amla Legend line of products. L’Oréal has distributed and

22

sold the Product through retail channels nationwide and directly to thousands of

23

consumers throughout the United States.

24

16.

Defendant Soft Sheen-Carson, LLC is a New York limited liability

25

company. At all times relevant to this matter, Soft Sheen-Carson, LLC was a citizen

26

of the state of New York with a principal place of business in New York, New York.

27
28

6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 7 of 43 Page ID #:50

1

Soft Sheen-Carson, LLC marketed, distributed, and sold the Amla Relaxer to

2

consumers in this judicial district and throughout the United States.

3
4

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

5

§ 1332(d) because there are more than 100 Class members, the aggregate amount in

6

controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest, fees, and costs, and at

7

least one Class member is a citizen of a state different from at least one Defendant.

8

18.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. Many of the acts

9

and omissions giving rise to this action occurred in California, including purchases

10

of the Product by Plaintiff Manier and other putative Class members. Defendants

11

have sufficient minimum contacts in California and intentionally avail themselves of

12

markets within California through the promotion, sale, marketing, and distribution

13

of their products and services in this State.

14

19.

Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a

15

substantial part of the events and/or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims

16

occurred in this District as Defendants do business throughout this District,

17

including selling and distributing the Product at issue in this District, and Plaintiff

18

Manier purchased the Product in this District.

19
20
21

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
The SoftSheen-Carson Brand
20.

In 1998, L’Oréal purchased Soft Sheen Products, Inc., which had

22

grown from a small family business founded in 1964 in Chicago to be the nation’s

23

largest African-American-owned beauty products company.

24

acquired Carson Products, another leader in beauty products for black consumers,

25

and in 2000 it merged the two companies to form SoftSheen-Carson. The then-

26

chairman and CEO of L’Oréal declared the acquisitions a strategic step in enhancing

In 1999, L’Oréal

27
28

7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 8 of 43 Page ID #:51

1

the company’s position in ethnic beauty markets both in the United States and

2

globally.

3

21.

Today, using the SoftSheen-Carson brand, L’Oréal claims to continue a

4

110 year tradition of providing “scientifically-advanced beauty tools” to African-

5

American women with “innovative products…specially designed for their needs”

6

that are “safe, reliable and guaranteed to provide great results.”

7

http://www.softsheen-carson.com/about-us.

8
9

22.

See

In particular, L’Oréal stresses the “ingredient science” embraced by its

so-called SoftSheen Carson Laboratories.

“By relying upon the depth of our

10

scientific know-how, we are continually advancing our products in order to surpass

11

the industry standards, making them the safest and most effective beauty products

12

for our consumers.” See id.

13

23.

L’Oréal has sought deeper penetration into the market share of minority

14

communities, claiming a desire to “help[] men, women, and children of color to

15

define and express beauty, on their own terms,” while employing celebrities,

16

including the likes of Beyoncé and Kelli Rowland as brand promoters.

17

24.

However, L’Oréal’s deceptive practices have belied its claim that “at

18

Softsheen-Carson, we mix our heart, our soul, and our science into formulas that

19

come through for the community that gave birth to us.” Instead of coming through

20

for that community, it has knowingly sold its customers a dangerous, defective

21

product comprised of a mix of harmful chemicals.

22

The Amla Relaxer

23

25.

In 2013, L’Oréal launched the “Amla Legend” line of hair products—a

24

product range claimed to be “enriched with purified Amla extract that rejuvenates

25

hair and undoes 2 years of damage in 2 weeks.”

26
27
28

8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 9 of 43 Page ID #:52

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

26.

L’Oréal promotes its Amla Legend line as a range of rejuvenating and

12

nourishing products infused with Amla oil, a luxurious hair oil “derived from the

13

Indian Amla superfruit known as the Gooseberry, a powerful antioxidant rich in

14

vitamins, essential fatty acids and minerals.”

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

27.

L’Oréal prominently features gold droplets of Amla Oil on all its Amla

25

Legend products, touting the ingredient’s “natural rejuvenating properties of intense

26

nourishment, conditioning and strength.”

27
28

9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 10 of 43 Page ID #:53

1

28.

L’Oréal partnered with celebrity supermodel and Real Housewife of

2

Atlanta, Cynthia Bailey, actress Tracy Ellis Ross, and celebrity hair stylist Johnny

3

Wright, stylist to First Lady Michelle Obama, to launch and promote the Amla

4

Legend collection.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

29.

Issuing a press release under the SoftSheen-Carson Laboratories

18

moniker, L’Oréal announced that SoftSheen-Carson’s “NEW! Optimum Salon

19

Haircare AMLA Legend Rejuvenating Ritual is now available in stores nationwide”

20

and stressed the abilities of the Amla Oil ingredient to “nourish[] and revitalize[] the

21

scalp and hair fiber,” “[r]everse[] damage from day one,” and protect “every hair

22

type and texture” from “dryness, breakage, and dullness.”

23

30.

These promises and other substantially similar claims appear directly

24

on packaging for the Amla Relaxer hair relaxer kit, which Defendants formulated,

25

manufactured, marketed, distributed, and sold nationwide both directly to consumers

26

and through major retail locations, including, but not limited to, Walmart, Sally

27
28

10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 11 of 43 Page ID #:54

1

Beauty Supply, CVS, and Walgreens, as well as through online retailers such as

2

Amazon.com and Defendants’ own website, http://www.softsheen-carson.com/. 1

3
4

31.

The Amla Relaxer packaging prominently displays the gold droplet of

Amla Oil and claims the Product will “reveal visibly fuller, silkier hair”:

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

32.

The Product is sold as a “rejuvenating” “5-step ritual”—including a so-

20

called “scalp protector pre-treatment,” relaxer cream, shampoo, conditioner, and oil

21

moisturizer, each featuring the “LEGENDARY…AMLA OIL!,” as depicted on the

22

following Product package panel:

23
24
25
26

1

The Product is sold for approximately $11.99. See
https://www.amazon.com/Softsheen-Carson-Optimum-LegendRelaxer/dp/B00B1KM1XM/ref=sr_1_1_s_it?s=beauty&ie=UTF8&qid=147216145
1&sr=1-1&keywords=amla+relaxer (last accessed August 25, 2016).

27
28

11
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 12 of 43 Page ID #:55

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

33.

L’Oréal employs numerous marketing claims to reinforce the Product’s

15

purported safe, nourishing, and gentle qualities. Specifically, packaging for the

16

Amla Relaxer contains the following representations regarding the Product’s alleged

17

qualities:

18

• “NO-LYE”;

19

• “Refills to reveal visibly fuller, silkier hair”;

20

• “Optimum Salon Haircare unveils its 1st Rejuvenating Ritual for

21

your hair”;

22

• “Infused with a legendary Indian beauty secret: AMLA oil”;

23

• “Amla is derived from the Amla Superfruit, and is known as a

24

powerful anti-oxidant, rich in vitamins and minerals, and renowned

25

for its natural rejuvenating properties of intense nourishment and

26

conditioning”;

27

• “Anti-Dryness”;

28

12
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 13 of 43 Page ID #:56

1

• “Anti-Breakage”;

2

• “Intense Conditioning”;

3

• “Infuses Hydration and Conditioning”;

4

• “Protects Scalp & Skin”;

5

• “Ensures an easier relaxing process for unified results and superior

6
7

respect of hair fiber integrity.”
34.

The “NO-LYE” claim in particular targets consumers who are seeking

8

a gentler alternative to lye-based relaxers, which are known for their potential to

9

cause irritation and to be harsh on hair and skin.

10

35.

Similarly, the “Our Ingredients” webpage of the softsheen-carson.com

11

website and “All Ingredients” list presented there address only ingredients with

12

“nourish[ing],” “conditioning,” and “natural rejuvenating properties”:

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

36.

Unfortunately, such ingredients comprise only the smallest percentages

23

of the various components of the Amla Relaxer. In reality, there is barely any

24

“LEGENDARY…AMLA OIL” in the Product. Instead, the Product is a mix of

25

harsh, caustic, and potentially toxic chemicals.

26
27
28

13
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 14 of 43 Page ID #:57

1

37.

The Amla Relaxer is marketed as a “NO-LYE” hair relaxer. However,

2

the Product is made with ingredients that have the potential to be every bit as

3

caustic, dangerous, and damaging as lye.

4

38.

Hydroxide relaxers are often made with either sodium hydroxide,

5

potassium hydroxide, lithium hydroxide, or guanidine hydroxide. “Lye” is a generic

6

term most commonly used for sodium hydroxide. Lye relaxers are frequently used

7

by professionals, but are known for their potential to cause skin irritation. 2 Thus,

8

hydroxide relaxers made without sodium hydroxide are frequently marketed as “no-

9

lye” to appeal to consumers.

10

39.

However, as Defendants are well-aware, the Product contains a mix of

11

ingredients that are as dangerous and caustic as lye. For example, the ingredient

12

lithium hydroxide can cause damaging effects including severe irritation, burns, and

13

blisters. Since the Product is applied to the hair, there is no avoiding potentially

14

harmful skin contact.

15

40.

One of the reasons a consumer may seek out a no-lye relaxer is because

16

they are looking for a product that is milder on the scalp and gentler on hair. By

17

representing on the front of the Product packaging, in capitalized and bold letters,

18

that Amla Relaxer has “NO-LYE,” along with representations regarding the

19

rejuvenating, nourishing, and conditioning qualities of the Product, Defendants led

20

reasonable consumers to believe that Amla Relaxer is a gentler alternative to

21

relaxers containing lye.

22

41.

National retailers utilize similar promotional materials on their

23

websites, including the images of the Product packaging. For example, Walmart’s

24

2

25
26

Hydroxide relaxers generally have a high pH, and thus a strong potential to cause
chemical burns. A pH level measures the acidity or alkalinity of a solution on a
scale of 0 to 14. Alkalis are bases with a pH of more than 7. The stronger the
alkali, the more corrosive or caustic.

27
28

14
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 15 of 43 Page ID #:58

1

website states that the Product is “[a]n easy no-mix, no-lye cream relaxer kit that

2

ensures an easier relaxing process for unified results and superior respect for hair

3

fiber integrity.” 3 The Walmart website also contains the following representation:

4

Optimum Salon Haircare unveils its first Rejuvenating Ritual for
your hair, Optimum Amla Legend No-Mix, No-Lye Relaxer. It’s
infused with a legendary Indian beauty secret: amla oil. Amla is
derived from the amla superfruit, and is known as a powerful antioxidant, rich in vitamins and minerals, and renowned for its
natural rejuvenating properties of intense nourishment and
conditioning. Experience the legendary power of amla oil! 4

5
6
7
8
9
42.

10
11

Infuses hydration and conditioning, Intense detangling, No Mix,
No-Lye Relaxer System For All Hair Types. Amla Legend
Regular Relaxer ensures an easier relaxing process for untied
results and superior respect of hair fiber & fiber integrity.
Optimum Salon Haircare unveils its 1st Rejuvenating Ritual for
your hair, infused with a legendary Indian beauty secret: Amla Oil.
Amla is derived from the Amla Superfruit, and is known as a
powerful anti-oxidant, rich in vitamins and minerals, and
renowned for its natural rejuvenating properties of intense
nourishment and conditioning. 5

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
43.

19
20

Similarly, the CVS website contains the following representations:

These representations are false, misleading, and deceptive. In reality,

Amla Relaxer can and does cause devastating injuries, such as hair loss and skin

21
22

3

23

See https://www.walmart.com/ip/Optimum-Amla-Legend-No-Mix-No-LyeRelaxer/24548828 (last accessed August 25, 2016).

24

4

25

5

26

See id. (emphasis added).

See http://www.cvs.com/shop/beauty/hair-care/treatments/softsheen-carsonoptimum-amla-legend-rejuvenating-ritual-no-mix-no-lye-relaxer-prodid915172?skuId=915172 (last accessed August 25, 2016) (emphasis added).

27
28

15
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 16 of 43 Page ID #:59

1

irritation, including burning and blisters, when used in accordance with the

2

instructions provided by Defendants.

3
4

44.

Defendants know the dangers posed by the Product and its ingredients,

as evidenced by their own stated ingredients list for the Amla Relaxer cream.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

45.

Defendants’ “NO-LYE” representation is rendered misleading by the

12

highly caustic nature of the Product’s claimed components. Indeed, the ingredient

13

lithium hydroxide can cause damaging effects including severe skin irritation, burns,

14

and blisters.

15

46.

It is even unclear whether the Product is truly a “NO-LYE” relaxer,

16

since retailer websites list “sodium hydroxide” among the Product ingredients. 6

17

Discovery will uncover additional facts concerning Defendants’ Product formula.

18
19

47.

As stated on the SoftSheen-Carson.com website, the Product

ingredients also include:

20

a. hexylene

glycol,

a

hazardous

substance

used

in

chemical

21

manufacturing, which can irritate the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract;

22

b. butylene glycol, a chemical that can penetrate the skin causing

23

irritation, dermatitis, and hives;

24
25
26

6

See http://www.sallybeauty.com/amla-regular-relaxer/SBS688660,default,pd.html; https://www.walmart.com/ip/Optimum-Amla-Legend-NoMix-No-Lye-Relaxer/24548828.

27
28

16
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 17 of 43 Page ID #:60

1

c. cocamidopropyl betaine, a synthetic surfactant associated with irritation

2

and allergic contact dermatitis; and

3

d. unspecified parfum / fragrance.

4
5

48.

Only last (and least) does the legendary Amla Oil ingredient—

Phyllanthus Emblica (Gooseberry) Fruit Extract—appear.

6

49.

The dangerous and defective nature of the Product is apparent from its

7

ingredients list. Its harmful effect is further undeniable from the slew of consumer

8

complaints evidenced on the Internet.

9

50.

The Internet is replete with consumer complaints that describe the

10

Product causing severe adverse reactions such as significant hair loss, burns, and

11

blisters. Below is a sample of consumer complaints from Amazon.com, which show

12

a disturbing trend:
• I have never experienced burns like the burns from this product.
[By] the time I walked up the stairs to the bathroom it was
unbearable. I pray my skin returns to normal and they should be
sued. 7
• ***I WANT TO SUE THIS COMPANY. ****I AM 42 YEARS
OLD AND I HAVE BEEN RELAXING MY OWN HAIR SINCE
I WAS 17 YEARS OLD, AND HAVE NEVER BEEN THIS
TRAUMATIZED. YESTERDAY 8-21-13 WENT AND
PURCHASED THIS AMLA RELAXER. (NORMALLY I USE
MILD OR REGULAR). BUT THIS BOX DID NOT SAY IF IT
WAS MILD, REGULAR OR SUPER STRENGHT. I ASKED
THE SALES CLERK AND SHE SAID IT WAS FOR ALL HAIR
TYPES. AROUND 8:25PM AFTER APPLYING THE SCLAP
TREATMENT BASE, I STARTED APPLYING THE RELAXER
AND IMMEDIATELY MY SCALP WAS ON FIRE. 5-10
MINUTES LATER ALL THE HAIR AT THE FRONT OF MY
HEAD FELL OUT AS I RINSED THIS CRAP OFF MY HAIR.
[I] AM SO TRAUMATIZED BY THIS EXPERIENCE. NOW I

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7

26

See https://www.amazon.com/Softsheen-Carson-Optimum-LegendRelaxer/dp/B00B1KM1XM (last accessed August 25, 2016).

27
28

17
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 18 of 43 Page ID #:61

AM COMPLETELY BALD ON THE FRONT PORTION OF MY
HEAD (COMPLETELY BALD FROM THE CROWN TO MY
FOREHEAD). AND TODAY 8-22-13 MY SCALP IS STILL
HURTING AND BURNING. I ONLY HAVE HAIR IN THE
BACK OF MY HEAD. I AM SO DEPRESSED AND
TRAUMATIZED FROM THIS EXPERIENCE THIS COMPANY
NEED TO STOP SELLING THIS PRODUCT. IT IS
MISLABELED. 8
• Don't use it! My 26 year old daughter is upstairs crying her eyes
out because her hair is gone. And I (her mother) relaxed it for her.
We followed directions she has been relaxing for years. We did not
leave it on too long. She now has no hair on the sides or back of
her head. Even with the scalp protector and vaseline around her
edges No Hair and her scalp is burned badly I did notice a lot of
hair loss during rinsing but never imagined this. Stay away from
this product I didn't know how to do no stars so I did one but for us
it's a big fat 0 stars. 9
• DO NOT USE THIS PRODUCT!!!! I BOUGHT THIS RELAXER
FROM A SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY IN TEXAS. MY HAIR IS
EXTREMEY DAMAGED. I HAVE A BALD SPOT IN THE
CROWN OF MY HEAD, MY HAIR HAS COME OUT
AROUND MY EDGES AND NAPE AREA AND
THROUGHOUT MY HAIR I HAVE SHORT DAMAGED
SPOTS. I WEAR MY HAIR SHORT AND NOW I HAVE
ALMOST NO HAIR. I NOW HAVE TO WEAR [A] WIG. I AM
DEVASTATED!!!!
SOFT SHEEN NEEDS TO DO RIGHT BY US.
ALSO, LADIES, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? I
HAVE CONTACTED THE COMPANY TO SEE WHAT THEY
WILL DO FIRST AND THEN I AM CONSIDERING A
PETITION AND CONSUMER COMPLAINT.
I AM A FORMER COSMETOLOGIST, SO I KNOW HOW TO
APPLY A RELAXER. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAVE
EXPERIENCED THIS HORRENDOUS! 10

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

8

See id.

9

See id.

10

See https://www.amazon.com/Softsheen-Carson-Optimum-Legend-

(continued…)

18
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 19 of 43 Page ID #:62

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

• DO NOT USE THIS RELAXER IF YOU WANT TO KEEP
YOUR HAIR!!! OMG!! WHY DID I NOT READ THE
REVIEWS BEFORE APPLYING THIS PRODUCT TO MY
HAIR!!!! I PURCHASED THIS PRODUCT ON THURSDAY,
FEB 4, 2016 BECAUSE I NEEDED TO RE-TOUCH MY ROOTS
ONLY! I WANTED TO TRY A DIFFERENT RELAXER AND
USED OTHER ALMA LEGEND PRODUCTS SO THOUGHT
WHAT COULD GO WRONG!! WHY JESUS, DID'NT I JUST
STICK TO MY ORGANICS OLIVE OIL RELAXER!!
NEEDLESS TO SAY I STARTED AT THE BACK OF MY
HEAD AND WORKED MY WAY TO THE MIDDLE OF MY
HEAD! IT STARTED TO BURN, BUT NOTHING THAT I
COULD NOT HANDLE SO I THOUGHT!! THEN THE
BURNING STARTING TO GET WORSE!! SO IMMEDIATELY
DECIDED LET ME JUST DO MY FRONT EDGES AND WASH
OUT. I SERIOUSLY HAD THE PRODUCT ON NO LONGER
THA[N] 20 MINUTES. I JUMPED IN THE SHOWER TO
START WASHING THE RELAXER OUT USING COOL
WATER, I GRABBED THE NEUTRALIZING SHAMPOO TO
STOP THE PROCESSING AND TO POSSIBLY COOL DOWN
THE BURNING, AND WHEN I SAY GLOBS OF HAIR
STARTING TO SLIDE OUT OF MY HAIR. I MEAN WHOLE
GLOBS OF HAIR!! NOT NORMAL 2-3 STRANDS. BUT A
WHOLE SECTION OF THE MIDDLE OF MY HEAD IS
BASICALLY GONE!! I STARTED SCREAMING AND
CRYING AT THE SAME TIME AND GRAB EVERY DEEP
CONDITIONER I OWNED!! BUT NOTHING WORKED!! IT
WAS TOO LATE!! NOW I'M LITERALLY LEFT WITH THIN
FRIED HAIR WITH SPOTS OF BROKEN OFF PIECES!! BIG
CHANGE FROM MY THICK WAVY ROOTS HAIR THAT I
WORK HARD TO MAINTAIN!! I'M SO UPSET THAT I'M
THINKING OF SUING THIS COMPANY!! THEY NEED TO
IMMEDIATELY TAKE THIS PRODUCT OFF THE MARKET!!
IT'S THE WORST PRODUCT I HAVE EVER USED!!

24

________________________
(…continued)

25

Relaxer/productreviews/B00B1KM1XM/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_btm?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
&sortBy=recent (last accessed August 25, 2016).

26
27
28

19
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 20 of 43 Page ID #:63

NOW I WILL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT IF I WANT [A] SHORT
PIXIE CUT OR WAIT 2 WEEKS TO GET BRAIDS!! OR WAIT
UNTIL MY SCALP STOPS BURNING!! UGH!! I HOPE THIS
SAVES SOMEONE OUT THERE!! THINK I MAY STAY
AWAY FROM RELAXERS FOR GOOD!! 11
• I have long thick healthy bra strap length hair and usually use Soft
& Beautiful Botanical for my touch-ups every 3-4 months. I
decided to purchase this perm from Walmart thinking that because
it's expensive, maybe it would be better than the Soft & Beautiful
that I've used for years. Also because of it's "no mix" feature.
Well...2 minutes after applying this product to the lower half of my
head, trying carefully to avoid the scalp, my scalp was on fire.
Now keep in mind that I do not have sensitive scalp and have
never burned from any other relaxer. I honestly thought I was
having an allergic reaction to the product. I quickly rinsed the crap
off with their neutralizing shampoo. Even after rinsing 3-4 times,
my scalp was still burning. I decided to use my own shampoo and
added coconut, olive oil and any conditioner I could get my hands
on to stop the stinging and breakage. Rinsed again another 4 times.
I was in pain even after drying my hair. Now I have scabs all over
my scalp. Since then, I've had to add olive oil to my scalp every
day to soften the scabs and so that my [h]air does not continue to
fall out. This is by far the wors[t] experience I've ever had with a
relaxer. There really should be a class-action lawsuit against this
product. 12
• All my hair came out don't buy this product 13
• I purchased this perm because it was new. My hair fell out My
head was burning so BADD after 3 minutes. I have pictures where
my hair was just falling out in chunks. PLEASE DONT USE THIS
PERM!!!!!!!! THIS PERM IS HORRIBLE!!!!! IM BALD ALL IN
THE CENTER OF MY HEAD AND MY SCALP LOOKS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

11

See id.

12

See https://www.amazon.com/Softsheen-Carson-Optimum-LegendRelaxer/productreviews/B00B1KM1XM/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_paging_btm_2?ie=UTF8&showViewpoi
nts=1&sortBy=recent&pageNumber=2 (last accessed August 25, 2016).
13

See id.

27
28

20
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 21 of 43 Page ID #:64

12

WHITE LIKE ITS BURNT!!!!!!! MY HAIR IS STILL
SHEDDING BADD AFTER USING THIS PERM THREE
WEEKS AGO!!!!! I HAD THE MOST BEAUTIFUL
HAIR!!!!!!!!!!! 14
• Attention ladies.. DO NOT USE THIS PRODUCT!!!!!!! My hair
is falling out in clumps and I have no hair in the lower back of my
head at all. This company has to be sued and this product needs to
be taken off the market. No one should have to go through this at
all. We need a class action lawsuit to go in effect immediately. I
wish I read these reviews before I purchased this product..Alma
Legends relaxer!!!!! Save yourself while you still have time. If you
want to keep your hair and your sanity you will not use this
product. I have been natural for at least two years and went to the
store to purchase products for a blowout but the products weren't in
stock so I decided to relax my hair, worst decision in my life!!! I
will be obtaining a lawyer because this is just wrong. So once
again...do not buy this product..please do not fall for their
propaganda! I cannot stress this fact enough!! The worst! 15

13

51.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

These consumers, as well as Plaintiffs and other Class members,

14

sustained damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ fraud, negligence,

15

wrongful conduct and omissions in connection with the research, formulation,

16

manufacture, testing, marketing, and sale of the Product.

17

52.

Despite having notice of these consumer complaints, Defendants have

18

continued to sell the Product and have failed to recall the Product or provide

19

adequate warning or instruction on the Product packaging or in other marketing

20

materials. Moreover, Defendants have failed to take proper action to mitigate the

21

adverse effects caused by the Product.

22
23
24
25
26

14

See https://www.amazon.com/Softsheen-Carson-Optimum-LegendRelaxer/productreviews/B00B1KM1XM/ref=cm_cr_getr_d_paging_btm_3?ie=UTF8&showViewpo
ints=1&sortBy=recent&pageNumber=3 (last accessed August 25, 2016).
15

See id.

27
28

21
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 22 of 43 Page ID #:65

1

53.

Defendants made the above-described actionable statements, and

2

engaged in the above-described omissions and concealments with knowledge that

3

the representations were false, deceptive and/or misleading, and with the intent that

4

consumers rely upon such representations, omissions, and concealments.

5

Alternatively, Defendants were reckless in not knowing that these representations

6

and material omissions were false and/or misleading at the time they were made.

7

54.

Plaintiffs

and

other

Class

members

relied

on

Defendants’

8

misrepresentations and omissions regarding the benefits of the Product. Plaintiffs

9

and Class members have been damaged by Defendants’ deceptive and unfair

10

conduct and wrongful actions and inaction in that they purchased the Product which

11

they would not have otherwise purchased had Defendants not misrepresented the

12

benefits of the Product or warned them of the potential harms caused by the Product.

13

CLASS DEFINITIONS AND ALLEGATIONS

14

55.

Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action under Federal Rule of Civil

15

Procedure 23 on behalf of all persons in the United States who, within the relevant

16

statute of limitations period, purchased the Product (the “Class”).

17

56.

Plaintiff Manier also seeks to represent a subclass defined as all

18

members of the Class who purchased the Product in California (the “California

19

Subclass”).

20

57.

Plaintiff Riles also seeks to represent a subclass defined as all members

21

of the Class who purchased the Product in Illinois (the “Illinois Subclass,” together

22

with the California Subclass, the “Subclasses”).

23

58.

Excluded from the Class and Subclasses are the Defendants, the

24

officers and directors of the Defendants at all relevant times, members of their

25

immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and

26

any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

27
28

22
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 23 of 43 Page ID #:66

1
2

59.

Also excluded from the Class and Subclasses are persons or entities

that purchased the Product for purposes of resale.

3

60.

4

represent.

5

61.

Plaintiffs are members of the Class and Subclasses they seek to

Members of the Class and Subclasses are so numerous that joinder of

6

all members is impractical. Although Plaintiffs do not yet know the exact size of the

7

Class, the Product is sold in retail locations throughout the United States, as well as

8

online, and on information and belief, members of the Class number in the

9

thousands, if not hundreds of thousands.

10

62.

The Class and Subclasses are ascertainable because their members can

11

be identified by objective criteria – the purchase of Defendants’ Product in the

12

United States during the statute of limitations period. Individual notice can be

13

provided to Class members “who can be identified through reasonable effort.” Fed.

14

R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2)(B).

15

63.

Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class

16

and the Subclasses and predominate over questions affecting only individual Class

17

and Subclass members. Common legal and factual questions include, but are not

18

limited to, whether Defendants’ labeling and marketing of the Product was

19

misleading and omitted material information.

20

64.

Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class

21

and Subclasses as all members of the Class and Subclasses are similarly affected by

22

the same common, inherent defect in Defendants’ Product.

23

interests antagonistic to the interests of the other members of the Class and

24

Subclasses. Plaintiffs and all members of the Class and Subclasses have sustained

25

economic injury arising out of Defendants’ violations of common and statutory law

26

as alleged herein.

Plaintiffs have no

27
28

23
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 24 of 43 Page ID #:67

1

65.

Plaintiffs are adequate representatives of the Class and Subclasses they

2

seek to represent because their interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class

3

and Subclass members, they have retained counsel that is competent and

4

experienced in prosecuting class actions, and they intend to prosecute this action

5

vigorously. The interests of the Class and Subclass members will be fairly and

6

adequately protected by Plaintiffs and their counsel.

7

66.

The class mechanism is superior to other available means for the fair

8

and efficient adjudication of the claims of Plaintiffs and Class members. Each

9

individual Class and Subclass member may lack the resources to undergo the burden

10

and expense of individual prosecution of the complex and extensive litigation

11

necessary to establish Defendants’ liability. Individualized litigation increases the

12

delay and expense to all parties and multiplies the burden on the judicial system

13

presented by the complex legal and factual issues of this case. Individualized

14

litigation also presents a potential for inconsistent and/or contradictory judgments.

15

In contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and

16

provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive

17

supervision by a single court on the issue of Defendants’ liability. Class treatment

18

of the liability issues will ensure that all claims are consistently adjudicated.
COUNT I
(California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq.)

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

67.

Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if

fully set forth herein.
68.

Plaintiff Manier brings this Count individually and on behalf of the

California Subclass.
69.

Plaintiff Manier and California Subclass members are consumers who

purchased the Product for personal, family, or household purposes. Accordingly,
Plaintiff and California Subclass members are “consumers” as that term is defined

27
28

24
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 25 of 43 Page ID #:68

1

by the CLRA in Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(d).

2

members are not sophisticated experts with independent knowledge of the

3

formulation and effects of the Product.

4
5
6
7
8

70.

Plaintiff and California Subclass

At all relevant times, the Product constituted a “good” as that term is

defined in Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(a).
71.

At all relevant times, Defendants were “persons” as that term is defined

in Civ. Code § 1761(c).
72.

At all relevant times, Plaintiff’s purchases of the Product, and the

9

purchases of the Product by other California Subclass members, constituted

10

“transactions” as that term is defined in Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(e). Defendants’

11

actions, inactions, representations, omissions, and conduct has violated, and

12

continues to violate the CLRA, because they extend to transactions that intended to

13

result, or which have resulted in, the sale of the Product to consumers.

14

73.

The policies, acts, omissions, and practices described in this Complaint

15

were intended to and did result in the sale of the Product to Plaintiffs and the Class.

16

Defendants’ practices, acts, omissions, policies, and course of conduct violated the

17

CLRA §1750 et seq. as described above.

18

74.

Defendants represented that the Product had sponsorship, approval,

19

characteristics, uses, and benefits which it did not have in violation of Cal. Civ.

20

Code § 1770(a)(5).

21

75.

Defendants represented that the Product was of a particular standard or

22

quality when Defendants were aware it was of another, in violation of California

23

Civil Code § 1770(a)(7).

24

76.

Defendants violated California Civil Code §§ 1770(a)(5) and (a)(7) by

25

representing that the Product was a “no-lye,” “anti-breakage” and “intense

26

conditioning” “rejuvenating ritual,” which delivers “unified results,” “respects hair

27

fiber integrity,” “reveal[s] visibly fuller, silkier hair,” “protects scalp & skin” and

28

25
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 26 of 43 Page ID #:69

1

“infuses hydration & conditioning” as more fully set forth above, when, in fact, the

2

Product does not have these qualities or effects; rather, it increases the risk of and

3

results in injuries, including, but not limited to substantial hair loss, breakage, burns,

4

blisters, and other signs of damage and irritation.

5

77.

Defendants advertised the Product with the intent not to sell it as

6

advertised in violation of § 1770(a)(9) of the CLRA. Defendants did not intend to

7

sell the Product as advertised because Defendants knew that the Product was not

8

safe and effective, would not nourish, rejuvenate and hydrate hair, or leave it fuller

9

and silkier. Defendants knew that use of the Product increases the risk of and

10
11

frequently results in damage and injuries.
78.

Plaintiff and California Subclass members suffered injuries caused by

12

Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions because: (a) Plaintiff and California

13

Subclass members would not have purchased the Product if they had known the true

14

facts; (b) Plaintiff and California Subclass members purchased the Product due to

15

Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions; and (c) the Product did not have the

16

level of quality, effectiveness, or value as promised.

17

79.

Plaintiff and the California Subclass seek an order enjoining

18

Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices, equitable relief, an award of

19

attorneys’ fees and costs under Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(e), and any other just and

20

proper relief available under the CLRA.

21

80.

Prior to the filing of this Complaint, a CLRA notice letter was served

22

on Defendants which complies in all respects with California Civil Code § 1782(a).

23

A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ letter is attached as Exhibit A. On September

24

13, 2016, Plaintiffs sent Defendants a letter via certified mail, return receipt

25

requested, advising Defendants that they are in violation of the CLRA and must

26

correct, repair, replace, or otherwise rectify the goods alleged to be in violation of

27

§ 1770. In the event that the relief requested has not been provided within thirty

28

26
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 27 of 43 Page ID #:70

1

(30) days, Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to include a request for damages

2

pursuant to the CLRA.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

COUNT II
(California’s False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§17500, et seq.)
81.

Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if

fully set forth herein.
82.

Plaintiff Manier brings this Count individually and on behalf of the

California Subclass.
83.

California’s FAL (Bus. & Prof. Code §§17500, et seq.) makes it

10

“unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or

11

disseminated before the public in this state, . . . in any advertising device . . . or in

12

any other manner or means whatever, including over the Internet, any statement,

13

concerning . . . personal property or services, professional or otherwise, or

14

performance or disposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading and which is

15

known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue

16

or misleading.”

17

84.

Defendants committed acts of false advertising, as defined by the FAL,

18

by using false and misleading statements, and material omissions, to promote the

19

sale of the Product, as described above, and including, but not limited to,

20

representing that the Product was a “no-lye,” “anti-breakage” and “intense

21

conditioning” “rejuvenating ritual,” which delivers “unified results,” “respects hair

22

fiber integrity,” “reveal[s] visibly fuller, silkier hair,” “protects scalp & skin” and

23

“infuses hydration & conditioning” as more fully set forth above, when, in fact,

24

Defendants knew or should have known the Product does not have these qualities or

25

effects; rather, it increases the risk of and results in injuries, including, but not

26

limited to substantial hair loss, breakage, burns, blisters, and other signs of damage

27

and irritation.

28

27
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 28 of 43 Page ID #:71

1
2
3
4
5

85.

Defendants knew or should have known, through the exercise of

reasonable care, that their statements were untrue and misleading.
86.

Defendants’ actions and omissions in violation of the FAL were false

and misleading such that the general public is and was likely to be deceived.
87.

As a direct and proximate result of these acts and omissions, consumers

6

have been and are being harmed. Plaintiff and members of the California Subclass

7

have suffered injury and actual out-of-pocket losses as a result of Defendants’ FAL

8

violation because: (a) Plaintiff and California Subclass members would not have

9

purchased the Product if they had known the true facts; (b) Plaintiff and California

10

Subclass members purchased the Product due to Defendants’ misrepresentations and

11

omissions; and (c) the Product did not have the level of quality, effectiveness, or

12

value as promised.

13

88.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code § 17535 for

14

injunctive relief to enjoin the practices described herein and to require Defendants to

15

issue corrective disclosures to consumers. Plaintiff and the California Subclass are

16

therefore entitled to: (a) an order requiring Defendants to cease the acts of unfair

17

competition alleged herein; (b) full restitution of all monies paid to Defendants as a

18

result of their deceptive practices; (c) interest at the highest rate allowable by law;

19

and (d) the payment of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to, inter alia,

20

California Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5.

21

COUNT III

22

(California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.)

23
24
25
26

89.

Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if

fully set forth herein.
90.

Plaintiff Manier brings this Count individually and on behalf of the

California Subclass.

27
28

28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 29 of 43 Page ID #:72

1

91.

The Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Business & Professions Code

2

§ 17200, et seq. (“UCL”), prohibits any “unlawful,” “unfair,” or “fraudulent,”

3

business act or practice and any false or misleading advertising.

4

92.

The UCL, Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq., provides, in pertinent

5

part: “Unfair competition shall mean and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent

6

business practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising ….” The

7

UCL also provides for injunctive relief and restitution for UCL violations. By virtue

8

of its above-described wrongful actions, Defendants engaged in unlawful, unfair,

9

and fraudulent practices within the meaning, and in violation of, the UCL.

10

93.

“By proscribing any unlawful business practice, section 17200

11

borrows violations of other laws and treats them as unlawful practices that the UCL

12

makes independently actionable.” Cel-Tech Communications, Inc. v. Los Angeles

13

Cellular Telephone Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999) (citations and internal

14

quotation marks omitted).

15

94.

Virtually any law or regulation – federal or state, statutory, or common

16

law – can serve as a predicate for an UCL “unlawful” violation. Klein v. Chevron

17

U.S.A., Inc., 202 Cal. App. 4th 1342, 1383 (2012).

18

95.

Defendants violated the “unlawful prong” by violating the CLRA and

19

the FAL, as well as by breaching express and implied warranties as described

20

herein.

21

96.

Defendants’ acts and practices constitute “unfair” business acts and

22

practices in that the harm caused by Defendants’ wrongful conduct outweighs any

23

utility of such conduct, and that Defendants’ conduct: (i) offends public policy;

24

(ii) is immoral, unscrupulous, unethical, oppressive, deceitful and offensive, and/or

25

(iii) has caused (and will continue to cause) substantial injury to consumers, such as

26

Plaintiffs and the Class.

27
28

29
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 30 of 43 Page ID #:73

1

97.

There were reasonably available alternatives to further Defendants’

2

legitimate business interests, including changing the Product formula, warning

3

consumers and the public about the risks of and adverse effects caused by the

4

Product, and recalling the Product, other than Defendants’ wrongful conduct and

5

omissions described herein.

6

98.

The UCL also prohibits any “fraudulent business act or practice.”

7

Defendants’ above-described claims, nondisclosures, and misleading statements

8

were false, misleading, and likely to deceive the consuming public in violation of

9

the UCL.

10

99.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ above-described

11

wrongful actions, inactions, and violation of the UCL; Plaintiff and members of the

12

California Subclass have suffered injury and actual out-of-pocket losses because:

13

(a) Plaintiff and California Subclass members would not have purchased the Product

14

if they had known the true facts; (b) Plaintiff and California Subclass members

15

purchased the Product due to Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions; and

16

(c) the Product did not have the level of quality, effectiveness, or value as promised.

17

100. Pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code §17203, Plaintiff and the California

18

Subclass are therefore entitled to: (a) an order requiring Defendants to cease the acts

19

of unfair competition alleged herein; (b) full restitution of all monies paid to

20

Defendants as a result of its deceptive practices; (c) interest at the highest rate

21

allowable by law; and (d) the payment of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees and costs

22

pursuant to, inter alia, California Code of Civil Procedure §1021.5

23
24
25
26
27
28

30
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 31 of 43 Page ID #:74

COUNT IV

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

(Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/1, et seq.)
101. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
set forth herein.
102. Plaintiff Riles brings this Count individually and on behalf of the
Illinois Subclass.
103. The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
(“ICFA”), 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/1, et seq. (the “ICFA”) protects consumers and
competitors by promoting fair competition in commercial markets for goods and
services.
104. The ICFA prohibits any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or
practices including the employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false
advertising, misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any
material fact.
105. Section 2 of the ICFA provides in relevant part as follows:
Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices,
including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception,
fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the
concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact, with intent
that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or omission of such
material fact, or the use or employment of any practice described in
Section 2 of the “Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act”, approved
August 5, 1965, in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby
declared unlawful whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived
or damaged thereby.
815 ILCS 505/2 (footnote omitted).

25
26
27
28

31
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 32 of 43 Page ID #:75

1

106. The ICFA applies to Defendants’ actions and conduct as described

2

herein because it protects consumers in transactions that are intended to result, or

3

which have resulted, in the sale of goods or services.

4

107. Defendants are persons within the meaning of the ICFA.

5

108. Plaintiff and other members of the Illinois Subclass are consumers

6
7
8

within the meaning of the ICFA.
109. Defendants’ Product is merchandise within the meaning of the ICFA
and the sale of its Product is considered trade or commerce under the ICFA.

9

110. Defendants’ act of marketing and advertising the Product as a “no-lye,”

10

“anti-breakage” and “intense conditioning” “rejuvenating ritual,” which delivers

11

“unified results,” “respects hair fiber integrity,” “reveal[s] visibly fuller, silkier

12

hair,” “protects scalp & skin” and “infuses hydration & conditioning” as more fully

13

set forth above, is a “deceptive” practice under the Act.

14

consumers such as Plaintiff and the other Subclass members with full information

15

on which to base purchases, Defendants knowingly concealed such facts and to date

16

has yet to issue even a single word of clarification or retraction

Rather than provide

17

111. Defendants’ foregoing deceptive acts and practices, including their

18

omissions, were material, in part, because they concerned an essential part of the

19

Product’s functionality and safety. Defendants omitted material facts regarding the

20

dangers and hazards associated with the Product by failing to disclose that the

21

Product can and does cause substantial hair loss, burns, and blisters, when used as

22

intended.

23
24

112. Defendants created advertisements and marketing materials with the
intent that Plaintiffs and other consumers would rely on the information provided.

25

113. Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions to Plaintiff and members

26

of the Illinois Subclass constitute unfair and deceptive acts and practices in violation

27

of the ICFA.

28

32
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 33 of 43 Page ID #:76

1

114. Had Defendants not engaged in the deceptive misrepresentation and

2

omission of material facts as described above, Plaintiffs and Illinois Subclass

3

members would not have purchased the Product or would have paid less for the

4

Product.

5

115. Plaintiff and Illinois Subclass members were damaged by Defendants’

6

conduct directed towards consumers.

7

Defendants’ violation of the ICFA, Plaintiff and Illinois Subclass members have

8

suffered harm in the form of monies paid for Defendants’ Product. Plaintiff, on

9

behalf of herself and the Illinois Subclass, seeks an order (1) requiring Defendants to

10

cease the unfair practices described herein; (2) awarding damages, interest, and

11

reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs to the extent allowable; and/or

12

(3) requiring Defendants to restore to Plaintiff and each Illinois Subclass member

13

any money acquired by means of unfair competition.

14

COUNT V
(Breach of Express Warranty)

15
16
17
18
19

As a direct and proximate result of

116. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
set forth herein.
117. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
the Class and Subclasses against Defendants.

20

118. Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclass members purchased the Product

21

either directly from Defendants or through authorized retailers such as Amazon,

22

Walmart, Walgreens and/or Sally Beauty Supply, among others

23

119. Defendants, as the designers, manufacturers, marketers, distributors, or

24

sellers expressly warranted that the Product was fit for its intended purpose by

25

making the express warranties that the Product is an “anti-breakage” and “intense

26

conditioning” “rejuvenating ritual” and which delivers “unified results,” “respects

27

hair fiber integrity,” “reveal[s] visibly fuller, silkier hair”, “protects scalp & skin”

28

33
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 34 of 43 Page ID #:77

1

“infuses hydration & conditioning,” and contains a “powerful anti-oxidant rich in

2

vitamins and minerals.”

3

120.

Defendants’ affirmations of fact and promises made to Plaintiffs and

4

the Class on the Product labels became part of the basis of the bargain between

5

Defendants on the one hand, and Plaintiffs and the Class members on the other,

6

thereby creating express warranties that the Product would conform to Defendants’

7

affirmations of fact, representations, promises, and descriptions.

8

121. Defendants breached this warranty and/or contract obligation by

9

placing the Product into the stream of commerce and selling it to consumers, when it

10

does not contain the properties it was represented to possess. Rather, Amla Relaxer

11

suffers from latent and/or inherent design and/or manufacturing defects that cause

12

substantial hair loss, burns, and blisters, rendering the Product unfit for its intended

13

use and purpose. These defects substantially impair the use, value and safety of the

14

Product.

15

122. The latent and/or inherent design and/or manufacturing defects at issue

16

herein existed when the Product left Defendants’ possession or control and was sold

17

to Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclass members.

18

discoverable by Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclass members at the time of their

19

purchase of the Product.

The defects were not

20

123. As the manufacturers, suppliers, and/or sellers of the Product,

21

Defendants had actual knowledge of the breach, and given the nature of the breach,

22

i.e. false representations regarding the Product, Defendants necessarily had

23

knowledge that the representations made were false, deceptive and/or misleading.

24

124. Defendants were provided further notice of the Product defects and the

25

breach of warranties via the hundreds of consumer complaints, including complaints

26

from putative Class members, posted on the Internet.

27
28

34
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 35 of 43 Page ID #:78

1

125. Plaintiffs and Class members were injured as a direct and proximate

2

result of Defendants’ breach because they would not have purchased the Product if

3

they had known the true facts and the Product did not have the characteristics,

4

quality, or value as promised.

5
6
7
8
9
10

COUNT VI
(Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability)
126. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if
fully set forth herein.
127. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the members of
the Class and Subclasses.

11

128. The Uniform Commercial Code § 2-314 provides that, unless excluded

12

or modified, a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract

13

for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. To be

14

“merchantable,” goods must, inter alia, “pass without objection in the trade under

15

the contract description,” “run, within the variations permitted by the agreement, of

16

even kind, quality and quantity within each unit and among all units involved,” be

17

“adequately contained, packaged, and labeled as the agreement may require,” and

18

“conform to the promise or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.”

19

129. Defendants formulated, manufactured, tested, marketed, promoted,

20

distributed, and sold the Product as safe for use by the public at large, including

21

Plaintiffs, who purchased the Product.

22
23
24
25

130. Defendants knew the use for which the Product was intended and
impliedly warranted the product to be of merchantable quality, safe and fit for use.
131. Plaintiffs reasonably relied on the skill and judgment of the Defendants,
and as such their implied warranty, in using the Product.

26

132. Contrary to same, the Product was not of merchantable quality or safe

27

or fit for its intended use, because it is unreasonably dangerous and unfit for the

28

35
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 36 of 43 Page ID #:79

1

ordinary purpose for which it was used. Specifically, the Product causes significant

2

hair loss and skin and scalp irritation, including burns and blisters.

3

133. Defendants breached their implied warranties because the Product does

4

not have the quality, quantity, characteristics, or benefits as promised, and because

5

the Product does not conform to the promises made on its labels.

6

134. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of these wrongful acts

7

or omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiffs experienced significant hair loss. They

8

also experienced burns and/or irritation on their scalp as a result of using the

9

Product.

10

135. Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass members were injured as a direct and

11

proximate result of Defendants’ breach because they would not have purchased the

12

Product if they had known the true facts and the Product did not have the

13

characteristics, quality, or value as impliedly warranted.

14

136. Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants for compensatory,

15

statutory and punitive damages, together with interest, costs of suit attorneys’ fees

16

and all such other relief as the Court deems appropriate pursuant to the common law

17

and statutory law.

18

COUNT VII

19

(Unjust Enrichment)

20
21
22
23
24
25

137. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if
fully set forth herein.
138. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the members of
the Class and Subclass.
139. Plaintiffs and members of the Class and Subclass conferred benefits on
Defendants by purchasing the Product.

26
27
28

36
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 37 of 43 Page ID #:80

1

140. Defendants have been unjustly enriched in retaining revenues derived

2

from Plaintiffs’ and Class and Subclass members’ purchases of the Product.

3

Retention of that revenue under these circumstances is unjust and inequitable

4

because Defendants misrepresented and omitted material facts concerning the

5

characteristics, qualities, and value of the Product and caused Plaintiffs and Class

6

and Subclass members to purchase the Product, which they would not have done

7

had the true facts been known.

8

141. Because Defendants’ retention of the non-gratuitous benefits conferred

9

on them by Plaintiffs and members of the Class and Subclass is unjust and

10

inequitable, Defendants must pay restitution to Plaintiffs and members of the Class

11

for its unjust enrichment, as ordered by the Court.

12

COUNT VIII

13

(Fraud)

14
15
16
17
18

142. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if
fully set forth herein.
143. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the members of
the Class and Subclasses.
144. As

described

herein,

Defendants

knowingly

made

material

19

misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Product in their marketing and

20

advertising materials.

21

145. Defendants made these material misrepresentations and omissions in

22

order to induce Plaintiffs and putative Class and Subclass members to purchase the

23

Product.

24

146. Rather than inform consumers about the dangers associated with using

25

the Product, Defendants represented the Amla Relaxer as a “no-lye,” “anti-

26

breakage” and “intense conditioning” “rejuvenating ritual,” which delivers “unified

27

results,” “respects hair fiber integrity,” “reveal[s] visibly fuller, silkier hair,”

28

37
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 38 of 43 Page ID #:81

1

“protects scalp & skin,” “infuses hydration & conditioning,” and contains a

2

“powerful anti-oxidant rich in vitamins and minerals.”

3

147. The Product is not a safe, effective, gentler or “easier relaxing process”

4

as described on Product packaging. Rather, it contains ingredients that alone and/or

5

in combination render it unsafe and unsuitable for consumer use as marketed by

6

Defendants.

7

148. The misrepresentations and omissions made by Defendants, upon

8

which Plaintiffs and other Class and Subclass members reasonably and justifiably

9

relied, were intended to induce and did actually induce Plaintiffs and other Class and

10
11
12

Subclass members to purchase the Product.
149. Had Plaintiffs known the truth about the qualities of and dangers
associated with the Product, they would not have purchased the Product

13

150. Defendants’ fraudulent actions and omissions caused damage to

14

Plaintiffs and other Class and Subclass members, who are entitled to damages and

15

other legal and equitable relief as a result.

16

COUNT IX

17

(Negligence)

18
19
20
21

151. Plaintiffs repeat the allegations in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully
set forth herein.
152. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of
the Class and Subclasses against Defendants.

22

153. Defendants negligently formulated, manufactured, tested, marketed,

23

promoted, distributed, and sold the Product in this District and throughout the

24

United States.

25

154. At all times relevant and material hereto, Defendants had a duty to

26

exercise reasonable care in the design, manufacture, testing, advertising, marketing,

27

labeling, packaging, distribution, promotion and sale of the Product.

28

38
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 39 of 43 Page ID #:82

1

155. Defendants breached their duty and was negligent in their actions,

2

misrepresentations, and omissions in numerous ways including, but not limited to,

3

the following:

4

a. Failing to use due care in the formulation, design, and development of

5

the Product to prevent and/or minimize the risk of injury and adverse

6

effect to individuals when the Product was used;

7
8
9
10

b. Failing to test the Product properly and thoroughly before releasing it
on the market;
c. Failing to conduct adequate post-market monitoring and surveillance
of the Product and analysis for adverse reports and effects;

11

d. Designing, manufacturing, marketing, advertising, distributing, and

12

selling the Product to consumers, including Plaintiffs and Class and

13

Subclass members, without adequate warnings of the risks associated

14

with using the Product and without proper and/or adequate

15

instructions to avoid the harm which could foreseeably occur as a

16

result of using the Product;

17
18

e. Failing to exercise due care when advertising and promoting the
Product;

19

f. Negligently continuing to manufacture, market, distribute, and sell the

20

Product, after Defendants knew or should have known of the risks of

21

serious injury associated with using the Product;

22
23

g. Failing to conduct adequate post-market surveillance and studies to
determine the safety of the Product;

24

h. Failing to label the Product to adequately warn Plaintiff, Class and

25

Subclass members, and the public of the risk of injury and adverse

26

effects associated with the Product.

27
28

39
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 40 of 43 Page ID #:83

1

156. Defendants advertised, marketed, sold and distributed the Product

2

despite the fact that the Defendants knew or should have known of the risks

3

associated with using the Product.

4

157. Defendants had a duty to warn their customers and the public about the

5

risks of injury and adverse effects and refused to do so placing profit ahead of

6

consumer safety.

7

158. Defendants knew or should have known that the Product had

8

unreasonably dangerous risks of which consumers would not be aware. Defendants

9

nevertheless advertised, marketed, sold and distributed the Product.

10

159. Despite the fact that Defendants knew or should have known that the

11

Product caused adverse effects including hair loss, burns, and blisters, Defendants

12

continued to manufacture, market, advertise, promote, sell and distribute the Product

13

to consumers, including Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass members.

14

160. Defendants recklessly and/or negligently failed to disclose to Plaintiffs

15

and Class and Subclass members the risks and adverse effects associated with the

16

Product, thereby suppressing material facts about the Product, while having a duty

17

to disclose such information, which duty arose from its actions of making,

18

marketing, promoting, distributing and selling the Product as alleged.

19
20

161. Defendants led Plaintiffs and Class members to rely upon the safety of
the Product in their use of the Product.

21

162. Defendants’ false representations were recklessly and/or negligently

22

made in that the Product in fact caused injury, was unsafe, and the benefits of its use

23

were far outweighed by the risk associated with use thereof.

24

163. Defendants knew or should have known that its representations and/or

25

omissions were false.

26

representations with the intent or purpose that Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass

Defendants made such false, negligent and/or reckless

27
28

40
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 41 of 43 Page ID #:84

1

members would rely upon such representations, leading to the use of the Product as

2

described.

3
4

164. Defendants recklessly and/or negligently misrepresented and/or omitted
information with respect to the Product as set forth above.

5

165. Defendants omitted, suppressed, and/or concealed material facts

6

concerning the dangers and risk of injuries associated with the use of the Product.

7

Furthermore, Defendants were willfully blind to, ignored, downplayed, avoided,

8

and/or otherwise understated the nature of the risks associated with the Product in

9

order to continue to sell the Product.

10

166. At the time Defendants made these misrepresentations and/or

11

omissions, they knew or should have known that the Product was unreasonably

12

dangerous and not what Defendants had represented to Plaintiffs and Class and

13

Subclass members.

14
15
16

167. Defendants’ misrepresentations and/or omissions were undertaken with
an intent that Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass members rely upon them.
168. Plaintiffs

relied

on

and

were

induced

by

Defendants’

17

misrepresentations, omissions, and/or active concealment of the dangers of the

18

Product to purchase and use the Product.

19
20

169. Plaintiffs did not know that these representations were false and
therefore were justified in their reliance.

21

170. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ negligent,

22

willful, wanton, and/or intentional acts, omissions, misrepresentations and/or

23

otherwise culpable acts described herein, Plaintiffs sustained injuries and damages

24

as alleged herein.

25

171. Had Plaintiffs been aware of the risk of injury associated with the

26

Product and the relative efficacy of the Product compared with other readily

27

available hair relaxer products, they would not have purchased the Product.

28

41
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 42 of 43 Page ID #:85

1

172. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ negligence,

2

willful, wanton, and/or intentional acts, omissions, misrepresentations and/or

3

otherwise culpable acts described herein, Plaintiffs sustained the injuries, damages,

4

and harm as alleged herein.

5
6

173. Defendants’ negligence was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’
harm.

7

174. Plaintiffs and Class and Subclass members are entitled to compensatory

8

damages, and exemplary and punitive damages together with interest, and such

9

other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

10
11
12
13

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, seek a judgment against Defendant, as follows:
a.

For an order certifying the Class under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules

14

of Civil Procedure and naming Plaintiffs as representatives of the

15

Class and Subclasses and Plaintiffs’ attorneys as Class Counsel to

16

represent the Class and Subclasses;

17

b.

18
19

referenced herein;
c.

20
21

For an order declaring that Defendants’ conduct violates the statutes

For an order finding in favor of Plaintiffs and the Class and
Subclasses on all counts asserted herein;

d.

22

For compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages in amounts to be
determined by the Court and/or jury;

23

e.

For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded;

24

f.

For an order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary

25
26
27
28

relief;
g.

For an order enjoining Defendants from continuing the unlawful
practices detailed herein; and

42
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF

 Case 2:16-cv-06886 Document 2 Filed 09/14/16 Page 43 of 43 Page ID #:86

1

h.

For an order awarding Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclass their

2

reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses and costs of suit.

3

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

4
5

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
DATED: September 14, 2016 GERAGOS & GERAGOS APC

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

By:

/s/ Mark J. Geragos

MARK J. GERAGOS (SBN 108325)
BEN J. MEISELAS (SBN 277412)
Historic Engine Co. No. 28
644 South Figueroa Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 625-3900
Facsimile: (213) 232-3255
geragos@geragos.com
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
LORI G. FELDMAN (pro hac vice to be filed)
lfeldman@zlk.com
ANDREA CLISURA (pro hac vice to be filed)
aclisura@zlk.com
COURTNEY E. MACCARONE (pro hac vice to be
filed)
cmaccarone@zlk.com
30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
New York, New York 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
Counsel for Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

43
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND EQUITABLE RELIEF