HBW Insight is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

L’Oreal/Matrix Hair Care May Be Weighing Settlement In Case Of Missing Keratin

This article was originally published in The Rose Sheet

Executive Summary

Plaintiffs scored class certification Aug. 15 in their false advertising suit against L’Oreal USA and its Matrix Essentials professional hair-care subsidiary, alleging that despite labeling and advertising cues, Biolage Keratindose hair products contain no keratin. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was largely denied in late 2017.

You may also be interested in...



Where’s The Keratin? L’Oreal/Matrix Hair Line Falsely Advertised – Lawsuit

Following a complaint filed in late January, L’Oreal will be defending labeling and advertising for Matrix Biolage Keratindose hair-care line in New York’s Southern District, the same court where claims and safety for a Soft Sheen-Carson hair relaxer are being challenged in a separate class action. Plaintiffs in the Keratindose suit allege the line is deceptively marketed because formulas contain no actual keratin.

Matrix Buy Doubles L'Oreal U.S. Professional Hair Care Business To $500 Mil.

L'Oreal's acquisition of Bristol-Myers Squibb's Matrix Essentials $342 mil. salon hair care brand will more than double its U.S. professional sales to approximately $500 mil. under an agreement announced April 18. The deal is expected to close in the second quarter.

California Federal Court Rejects Settlement Proposal In Coppertone ‘Mineral-Based’ Sunscreen Case

Beiersdorf and former owner Bayer are on the verge of settling a proposed class action in California’s Northern District challenging “mineral-based” claims on Coppertone sunscreens that also contain chemical UV filters. However, the parties will have to try again with their proposed terms.

Topics

Related Companies

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

RS121785

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel