|
Search
Search through the thousands of lawsuits, complaints and recalls on our site.
 |
Case ID: 4838 | Consumer Products | 06/08/2006
A consumer class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of persons who purchased Garnier Fructis hair products during the past four years, believing they actually strengthened hair. Both the labeling and advertising of defendant L'Oreal's Garnier Fructis shampoos and conditioners claim to make hair five times stronger and five times smoother.
According to the Complaint, filed in San Diego Superior Court, L'Oreal "falsely promoted" its products "as able to make hair '5x stronger,' '5x smoother,' and 'stronger with 80% less breakage.'" Garnier Fructis products, however, do not have any consumer perceptible strengthening effect and L'Oreal's claims of their strengthening efficacy misled or had the tendency to deceive the public. Plaintiffs believe that the Garnier Fructis products, which are the subject of "a pervasive, widespread, repetitive advertising and marketing campaign," are in fact "nothing more than deceptively packaged goods designed to take advantage of the market for a product to strengthen hair." Plaintiffs and seek injunctive relief, restitution, damages, disgorgement, and corrective advertising concerning the sale of these products. "We believe that as a result of the misleading advertising, anyone who bought a Garnier Fructis hair product during the class period had expectations that they were purchasing products that would strengthen their hair by a perceptible margin" said a lawyer for the plaintiffs. "Our research indicates there is absolutely no perceptible hair strengthening effect, and the Defendant should not continue profiting from the sales of products that were deceivingly represented and marketed." Over the past year, L'Oreal sold more than $70 million worth of Garnier Fructis shampoo products, which according to the suit falsely claimed to strengthen hair. The lawsuit is open to any person that purchased L'Oreal's Garnier Fructis shampoo or conditioner who had expections of their hair becoming stronger after many uses. At Lawcash.com, it is our goal to keep you informed about important legal cases, class actions and settlements. Our lawyers offer free legal evaluations in tort cases, class actions, personal injury, and other lawsuits because we are dedicated to helping you resolve your legal complaints. Other Consumer Products Cases of Interest The parties have reached a tentative $750,000 settlement of a class action filed against adult entertainment and multimedia enterprise Metro Global Media, Inc. (Pink Sheets: MGMA, formerly OTCBB: MGMA) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between September 13, 1996, and September 13, 1999. To recover under the settlement, a completed proof of claim postmarked no later than October 27, 2003, must be mailed to the claims administrator.
A class action has been filed in the Southern District Court of New York against Jakks Pacific, Inc. (NYSE: JAKK), a California based toy company and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between October 26, 1999 and October 19, 2004. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. The stockholders seek to recover compensatory damages for the loss of value of their stock. Ashley Peach of Illinois filed a class action suit against Wal-Mart on June 16, 2004, alleging the cashier at Wal-Mart failed to return a $1.39 balance on her gift card.
In the complaint, sometime after Mother’s Day in May 2004, Peach purchased shampoo, conditioner, and other toiletries from the Granite City Wal-Mart, using two separate $10 gift cards to pay for the purchase that totaled $18.61. Californian Pet Owners Devastated Over Deaths and Illnesses Allegedly Caused By Go! Natural Pet Food Pet dogs and cats often are often considered to be members of the family. A class action has been filed against pet food store Pet Food Express, Ltd. and Canadian petfood manufacturer Petcurean Pet Nutrition, Inc. on behalf of all California residents who purchased Go! Natural pet food from Pet Food Express or other stores during 2003 and whose animals became ill or died as a result. The action alleges that the food was tainted in some manner, violating state product liability laws, and often causing the pet owners to incur four-digit veterinary bills. Whirlpool Combination Microwave/Oven Hood Owners Net $7.9+ Million Settlement Because of Fire Hazard Home appliances that contain hidden defects can sometimes pose grave hazards to those who use them. On July 7, 2003, the court granted final approval to the parties' $7.9+ million settlement in a class action against Sears, Roebuck and Company and Whirlpool Corporation on behalf of all persons who purchased a microwave-oven/hood combination manufactured by Whirlpool Corporation and sold under the Whirlpool, Kenmore, or KitchenAid brand name during the period from January 1, 1998, through September 30, 2001, with a serial number beginning with the letters "XC." A class action has been filed against packaging materials manufacturer Sealed Air Corporation (NYSE: SEE) and certain of its officers and directors by stockholders who purchased the company's common stock between March 27, 2000, and July 30, 2002. The action claims that the defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market over this time period, thereby artificially inflating the price of the company's securities. |
|
© 2000 - 2008 Copyright. All rights reserved nola3, llc.
