Hey, there! Log in / Register
Lather, rinse, file a federal lawsuit: Quincy woman sues over 'sulfate-free' shampoo that has sulfate in it
By adamg on Fri, 02/24/2017 - 10:49am
Molly Crane of Quincy says she never would have bought Healthy Sexy Hair Sulfate-Free Soy Moisturizing Shampoo if she'd known it actually has sulfate in it.
In a lawsuit filed this week in US District Court in Boston, Crane said that when she tried some of the stuff and "didn't like the results," she looked at the fine-print list of ingredients on the back of the bottle and was shocked to learn that among the listed ingredients was sodium sulfate. Also, she wasn't real happy that the ingredints also included two types of salts, because the front label also promised a salt-free experience.
Plaintiff has been economically injured by the misrepresentations that the shampoo she purchased was sulfate-free and salt free. Plaintiff would never have purchased the shampoo had she been aware that it contained sulfates and salt.
The suit lists both Sexy Hair Concepts, LLC, and Ulta, which owns the Braintree shop where she says she bought the offending shampoo.
Her suit does not specify monetary damages, but it asks a judge to name her the lead plaintiff in a product-labeling and consumer-protection class-action suit.
Complete Crane complaint (3M PDF).
Neighborhoods:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
ugh
There has to be a better way to address something this egregious.
Yes, there is a better way
If the regulatory agencies were actually doing their job, then this wouldn't be necessary. But since they aren't, I have no problem with a consumer and her lawyers getting a nice reward for doing work that benefits the public.
and the need for consumers as watchdogs is only going to grow
Seriously, the last thing we need is less regulation, despite what we're being told by the current administration. Brings to mind that Frontline from last year that found that despite being vaguely overseen by the FDA, a full 79% (!!) of dietary supplements tested didn't contain ANY of the substance they were supposed to contain. But sure, let's role back regulation even more.
Hooray for the Quincy person
These companies are basically criminally messing with people's health, through lying, like they don't expect to get caught. When the regulatory authorities aren't keeping up, lawsuits are the only way.
The only thing I'd ask of the Quincy person is not to let this one turn into a cost-of-business handslap for the criminals -- no settlement of $3.19 product coupon to all affected people who manage to hear of the suit and jump through the hoops to join.
Stick it to the criminal company so hard, that they are driven completely out of business, and no company will want to employ or invest in the principals behind it.
Well....there are some people
Well....there are some people that are highly allergic to sulfates in shampoos. (Think terrible rashes, etc.) I need to use sulfate-free shampoos otherwise I am itchy itchy itchy! If there is indeed a class-action lawsuit that will happen there will be people with dermatological allergies that for sure would join, I bet.
Thank you! Unfortunately
Thank you! Unfortunately there are too many comments re: this story by people who think... well this doesn't happen to me so you people can go screw yourselves... right-winger/ Trump supporters, of course.
?
?
Plaintiff would never have
More likely, the mislabeling is the only reason the plaintiff purchased the shampoo. Find a mislabeled product on the shelf in a chain store, and Jackpot!
Good for her
She's serving the public interest and is entirely deserving of the jackpot.
I hope this gets dumped as a frivolous suit
She should have read the list of ingredients before buying the shampoo! Also, bringing a suit for what is probably a $20.00 bottle of shampoo is a terrible waste of money and time, not just for her but for whatever court this suit ends up in.
This reminds me of the guy who sued a dry cleaner and somehow ended up with millions of damages before a sensible judge put an end to it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR200706...
You don't think labelling is important?
If the name of the product has "Sulfate-Free" in it, why should I need to check the ingredient list for sulfates?
Agreed!
If you bought something that said "peanut-free" home and someone died from eating it due to a severe peanut allergy, I assume you'd be a little peeved about that. Maybe it's just shampoo and that seems frivolous, but labels are there for a reason, and consumers should be able to trust them.
There's a difference
Something that could cause injury and fatality for many people would justify a lawsuit. Something that causes a bad shampoo does not.
Why not?
Why doesn't a manufacturer blatantly lying on the label about what's in his product, justify a lawsuit?
I assume her skin is sensitive to or allergic to sulfates
Tell me SalSal..
Do you read every list of ingredients for every product you purchase? I mean every single time? I would be surprised if you said "yeah, I do.". However, the issue, which you are missing, is that the product is advertising being "sulfate-free" when indeed it has sulfates according to its ingredient label. I think many of these lawsuits are silly but in this case, I can see her point. A product should not have "sulfate-free" on its label if it is not sulfate-free. Period.
But you don't have to go to court over it.
I would question the notion that there is no other way to deal with this except the court system. We actually have a pretty active consumer protection agency in this state (http://www.mass.gov/ago/bureaus/public-protection-and-advocacy/the-consu...) which seems like a more logical place to start if the interest is in taking a bad product out of circulation and getting a refund.
Like the Tito's Hand Made suit. Staggering affect on
humanity.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&...
I'm curious
Why are you carrying water for the corporate producers of mislabeled schlock? What's your dog in this hunt?
Carrying vodka not water and the shallow ambulance chasing
belittles the truly injured of corporate malfeasance.
Cheaters suck
I hate cheaters.
In sports.
At cards.
In business.
I hate liars, too.
I think they should be hounded without mercy.
In no way does this lawsuit take away any resources that would otherwise be spent dealing with the truly injured of corporate malfeasance.
This is the kind of consumer
This is the kind of consumer protection issue the AG should be going after instead of abusing her consumer protection powers to ban things she personally dislikes.
Going after companies which reduce the size of their product and keep the same packaging should also be her priority. Consumers are getting ripped off whenever companies reduce content by 2oz and keep the package and price the same without clear notice.
This is the ingredients list
This is the ingredients list from the Ultra website
Ingredients
-
Water/Aqua/Eau, Sodium C14-16 Olefin Sulfonate Cocamidopropyl Betaine, Ammonium Chloride, Argania Spinosa Kernel Oil, Theobroma Cacao (Cocoa) Seed Butter, Glycerin, Panthenol, Theobroma Cacao (Cocoa) Extract, Benzophenone-4, Glycine Soja (Soybean) Oil, Hydrolyzed Soy Protein, Sodium Cocoyl Isethionate, Guar Hydroxypropyltrimonium Chloride, PEG-12 Dimethicone, PEG-150 Pentaerythrityl Tetrastearate, PEG-6 Caprylic/Capric Glycerides, Glycol Distearate, Polysorbate 20, Disodium EDTA, Citric Acid, Propylene Glycol, Methylchloroisothiazolinone, Methylisothiazolinone, Fragrance, Benzyl Alcohol, Benzyl Benzoate, Citral, Citronellol, Geraniol, Linalool, Limonene, Hexyl Cinnamic Aldehyde.
Where is Sodium Sulfate listed?
Now I, like I'm guessing most of you were probably wondering if Olefin Sulfonate could be considered a Sulfate so I googled it and this was the first result that came up
"The name may be misleading, but sodium C14-16 olefin sulfonate is not a sulfate. Sulfonate is related to but not the same as sulfates. ... They do have similar qualities when it comes to propensity of being irritating to the skin but sodium C14-16 olefin sulfonate is not a sulfate."
maybe they have reformulated it since she filed this lawsuit?
It says in the lawsuit...
that she found sodium sulfate on the list of ingredients.
You would have to be a
You would have to be a chemist to figure this stuff out. Often ingredients are used that are pretty much the same thing as the ingredient that they claim is not in the product. It just has a different name.
An example is the Chinese restaurants that advertise NO MSG, they just use a very similar ingredient that causes the same reaction in people that are sensitive to MSG, including raising your blood pressure.
Shampoo
Good thing it wasn't preparation H. Any attorney who filed this pieces of nonsense should be reprimanded
Reprimanded for what?
Reprimanded for what? For insisting that those who sell stuff shouldn't flat-out lie about the ingredients?