Plaintiff Kelley Botallico bought haircare products from Monat Global Corporation in part because the company represented that the products were organic and would not cause damage to the hair or scalp. Unfortunately, the complaint for this California class action says that this proved not to be true.
The class for this action is all consumers who, during the applicable statute of limitations, bought, or tried to buy, the Class Products, where the Class Products caused damage to the consumer’s scalp and hair loss.
Botallico apparently saw advertising that claimed that the products at issue were made from organic and all-natural materials and that they would therefore not cause damage to the hair and scalp. (Oddly, neither the brands nor the specific haircare products are named in the complaint.)
The complaint points out that “[c]onsumers rely on the representations and advertisements of haircare product producers…” Also, it says, “When consumers purchase haircare products from haircare vendors, they reasonably believe that they will receive products … of the nature and quality that was [sic] advertised and disclosed…”
According to the complaint, consumers have no way to discover the true nature of products before purchase and must therefore rely on the claims made for the products.
It also claims, “Defendant makes written and oral representations to consumers which contradict the actual nature and quality of the products that will be delivered to the consumer after the consumer purchases the products.” (Again, it fails to specify the nature and details of any oral representations made, nor does it directly quote any claims the company makes for the products.)
Botallico claims to have bought the products in January 2018. The central assertion of the complaint is that after plaintiff Botallico used the products on her hair, she experienced itching of her scalp and hair loss. She had a doctor examine her hair and scalp, and, according to the complaint, the doctor determined that the itching and balding were both caused by the haircare products.
The complaint claims that Monat’s representations that the products were safe for hair and scalp violated California’s Business and Professions Code, including its False Advertising Act and Unfair Business Practices Act. It requests “corrective advertising,” actual and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, interest, and any other relief the court finds appropriate.