Facts

Amplify, Ltd. markets haircare products and skincare products under the "Cel MD" brand. Within the Cel MD brand, Amplify markets the Microstem Hair Stimulation Formula, Mictrostem Conditioner, and numerous other products. Amplify also markets a line of skincare products advertised as anti-aging tools. Diane Hightree brought a class action against Amplify. The class included all persons who purchased Cel MD haircare and/or skincare products in the United States or, alternatively, the State of California, for personal use and not for resale, during the relevant period.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty; unjust enrichment; violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act; violation of California's False Advertising Law and the Business & Professions Code; and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiff contended that defendant made grand promises to consumers with thinning hair and/or hair loss by claiming that its haircare products encouraged new hair growth, fought hair loss, strengthened hair, promoted new hair growth, used natural components to block the hormone DHT, known to advance hair loss, and encouraged high cell turnover to promote new hair growth. Plaintiff contended that defendant falsely touted its skincare products as having the ability to tighten, rejuvenate, and smooth lines from aging skin and lips, and the ability to grow stronger, healthier nails. Plaintiff asserted that these claims were false, misleading and deceptive. Plaintiff argued that the products were incapable, when used either individually or collectively, as a system of producing the advertised results. Plaintiff claimed that defendant's promises to change the texture and age of skin and nails through plant stem cells and collagen, among other things, in their skincare products was patently false and rejected by the scientific and medical communities. Plaintiff further contended that defendant intentionally mislead and shortchanged consumers by falsely and deceptively misrepresenting the products, when in reality, they were incapable of revitalizing or restoring hair, skin and nails due to the aging process, or for any other chronic acute reason.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions and contended that the products were an efficacious means of delivering the advertised haircare and skincare benefits.

Settlement Discussions

The parties participated in a mediation before the Honorable James Warren (Ret.). Although the parties did not reach a settlement that day, Judge Warren provided the parties with a mediator's proposal with an all-inclusive monetary component amount for a nationwide class settlement. Both sides accepted the mediator's proposal and negotiated ither terms of a classwide settlement providing for both monetary and injunctive relief for plaintiff and a nationwide class, and an appropriately tailored release for defendant.

Result

The case settled for $753,285. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, defendant agreed that it will not state on the label of its hair care products that the product causes new hair growth and/or blocks the hormone DHT. With respect to its skin care products, defendant will not state on the labeling of its products that the product reduces wrinkles or tightens skin. Defendant will also create a separate page on the product website explaining, among other things, the origin and nature of the stem cells contained in the products.