Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWoman With Chutzpah Sues L'Oreal
MANHATTAN (CN) - In a federal class action, an Orthodox Jew accuses L'Oreal and Lancome of falsely advertising their "24-hour makeup;" she can't apply makeup on the Sabbath and it would look lousy for her son's Bar Mitzvah, she says in the complaint.
----
The dual objectives refer to defendants' claims - actually, three of them - that the stuff would be "retouch free," "perfectly flawless," and provide "24 hour lasting perfection and comfort."
Not willing to leave it to chance, Weisberg says, she "decided to test it from sundown Thursday to sundown Friday to see if she liked it and if the product worked. Plaintiff did so because she did not want to be stuck wearing the product over the weekend if it did not work."
Alas! From the moment it went on at 5 p.m. Thursday, "Plaintiff felt that the product made her skin look very cakey. By Friday morning, plaintiff's skin was shiny, particularly around her nose. Moreover, the product that had been applied had faded significantly, making plaintiff's face look uneven. It looked like very little of the product was remaining on plaintiff's face, which was confirmed when she removed the remainder of the product at 3 p.m. with a white cotton ball, where very little of the product was found on the pad. Based on her experience, plaintiff did not receive the benefit of longwearing efficacy as claimed by Lancome in its advertising and on the product packaging."
----
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/03/57289.htm
----
The dual objectives refer to defendants' claims - actually, three of them - that the stuff would be "retouch free," "perfectly flawless," and provide "24 hour lasting perfection and comfort."
Not willing to leave it to chance, Weisberg says, she "decided to test it from sundown Thursday to sundown Friday to see if she liked it and if the product worked. Plaintiff did so because she did not want to be stuck wearing the product over the weekend if it did not work."
Alas! From the moment it went on at 5 p.m. Thursday, "Plaintiff felt that the product made her skin look very cakey. By Friday morning, plaintiff's skin was shiny, particularly around her nose. Moreover, the product that had been applied had faded significantly, making plaintiff's face look uneven. It looked like very little of the product was remaining on plaintiff's face, which was confirmed when she removed the remainder of the product at 3 p.m. with a white cotton ball, where very little of the product was found on the pad. Based on her experience, plaintiff did not receive the benefit of longwearing efficacy as claimed by Lancome in its advertising and on the product packaging."
----
http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/05/03/57289.htm
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
8 replies, 1448 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
8 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Woman With Chutzpah Sues L'Oreal (Original Post)
tammywammy
May 2013
OP
I would think sleeping it in, rolling around on your pillow, would remove it.
tammywammy
May 2013
#6
Why didn't she just email her complaint to them and ask for her money back??
kestrel91316
May 2013
#8
NV Whino
(20,886 posts)1. Oh vey!
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)2. This is like the poster child for a 1st world problem
Whisp
(24,096 posts)4. one of our 1st world problems is the constant lies we are fed, as consumers.
I'm tickled someone can stand up and truthfully call them liars.
tammywammy
(26,582 posts)6. I would think sleeping it in, rolling around on your pillow, would remove it.
It's makeup, it's supposed to be washed off every night. It's not a permanent face paint.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)3. Anti-perspirants don't last 48 hours either
Maybe I'll sue the manufacturer!
Enrique
(27,461 posts)5. she should take it back to the store
they'll give her her money back.
Or she could sue them.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)7. Moths dont have balls
but they sell them.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)8. Why didn't she just email her complaint to them and ask for her money back??
That's what any NORMAL person would do.