This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumers Legal Remedies Act
False Advertising

Cristie Ramirez and Natalie Linarte, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HB USA Holdings Inc. dba Huda Beauty

Published: Jan. 28, 2022 | Result Date: Jul. 9, 2021 | Filing Date: Jan. 25, 2021 |

Case number: 5:20-cv-01016-JGB-SHK Settlement –  Reimbursement

Judge

Jesus G. Bernal

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Alex R. Straus
(Milberg, Coleman, Bryson, Phillips & Grossman PLLC)

Caroline R. Taylor
(Whitfield Bryson LLP)

William A. Ladnier
(Greg Coleman Law PC)

Jonathan B. Cohen
(Greg Coleman Law PC)

Peter J. Farnese
(Beshada Farnese LLP)


Defendant

Christopher Chorba
(Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP)


Facts

In 2013, Huda Kattan launched the cosmetics company, Huda Beauty. The company sells more than 140 products ranging from eyeshadow pallets to lip gloss and has over $250 million in annual sales. In May 2019, Huda Beauty introduced a line of products known as Neon Obsession. Neon Obsession consisted of three varieties of pressed pigment palettes known as Neon Pink, Neon Green, and Neon Orange. Huda Beauty's marketing and advertising for Neon Obsession, including YouTube videos featuring Kattan, encouraged purchases to use the product on the eyes and surrounding areas. Despite this marketing, Neon Obsession was not safe for use on the eyes or surrounding skin. The palettes were sold in clear plastic wrapping that allowed visual inspection of the entire product prior to purchase. Importantly, however, there was no prominent warning alerting prospective purchasers to not use the product on their eyes. Instead, there was a six-word disclaimer that simply stated, "not intended for the eye area," under a peel-back label listing the products ingredients and country of origin. Plaintiffs Cristie Ramirez and Natalie Linarte filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others who had purchased Neon Obsession.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that they had suffered from red, itchy, and irritated eyes for several days after using Neon Obsession as eyeshadow; that Neon Obsession had stained the skin around their eyes; that purchasers could not have possibly seen the warning label on the palettes prior to purchase; that Defendant had breached implied warranties because Neon Obsession was not fit for its ordinary and advertised purpose; that Defendant was unjustly enriched through wrongful acts and omissions in advertising Neon Obsession; and that Defendant had falsely advertised Neon Obsession; that Defendant engaged in fraud; and that Defendant was negligent in its advertising.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all of Plaintiffs' material allegations and any wrongdoing.

Result

The case settled. Settlement Class Members are eligible for a payment of $29.00 for each Product, up to a maximum of three products.


#138359

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390