A proposed class motion alleges Madison Reed hair colour merchandise are far harsher than the corporate lets on and have been identified to trigger hair loss, breakage, shedding, scalp irritation and different harm to a consumer’s hair. 

The sprawling 102-page lawsuit says that Madison Reed positions its “salon-quality” hair colour merchandise as much less harsh on hair, particularly as a result of they don’t include ammonia; nevertheless, one of many chemical compounds discovered within the hair dyes, ethanolamine, just isn’t solely constructed from ammonia however has been scientifically proven to trigger extra harm to hair than the chemical it changed.

Based on the case, ethanolamine is a identified irritant constructed from ammonia and ethylene oxide, which is acknowledged by the U.S. Environmental Safety Company as a carcinogen. Because the go well with tells it, Madison Reed deliberately fails to open up to shoppers that quite a lot of the elements it makes use of to interchange “harsher” chemical compounds like ammonia are themselves dangerous.

…the Merchandise’ entrance label communicated to Plaintiff and members of the Class the false message that the Merchandise had been safer as a result of they didn’t include these elements, regardless that their replacements had been simply as unhealthy, some even a lot worse since they had been partly composed of identified carcinogens…”

The grievance, filed in New York on February 7, alleges that Madison Reed is properly conscious of the hazard its hair colour merchandise pose but gives no warning to shoppers and, actually, continues to assert in its pervasive ads that the dyes are light, secure and wholesome for hair. Moderately than inform customers that its “freed from” ammonia hair dyes would want to incorporate an ingredient that capabilities equally to ammonia, Madison Reed as an alternative gives a “barely intelligible” elements checklist rife with extremely advanced chemical compounds that a affordable purchaser “just isn’t more likely to find out about,” the case says.

“So far, Defendant has not recalled the Merchandise, has not supplied any warnings of the identified dangers, has not reformulated the Merchandise, has denied that the Merchandise trigger the reported well being points, has not supplied its prospects any compensation for his or her damages and continues to tout by way of radio commercials, its web site, mailers and elsewhere that