L'Oréal faces lawsuit after hair loss backlash

​L'Oréal faces lawsuit after Amla Legend hair loss backlash

Plaintiffs allege that thousands of women who bought the relaxer product have experienced distressing injuries.

The lawsuit, submitted on 14 September by high profile attorney Mark J Geragos, lists a number of complaints of the product posted to the Amazon website. 

Two US women have filed a class action lawsuit against L’Oréal and its hair care brand SoftSheen-Carson claiming that one of its hair relaxer kits causes hair loss and scalp burns.
​
The SoftSheen-Carson Optimum Amla Legend No-Mix, No-Lye Relaxer is said to help afro-caribbean hair to feel fuller and silkier through the inclusion of amla oil from the Indian amla super fruit.

However, the plaintiffs allege that thousands of women who bought the product have experienced distressing injuries including hair loss and breakage, and scalp irritation, blisters and burns.

Despite not listing lye as an ingredient, the plaintiffs claim that the inclusion of lithium hydroxide can cause damaging effects including those listed above.
They also stated that it is unclear whether the product truly is a ‘no-lye’ relaxer as the retail lists sodium hydroxide in the products’ ingredients online.

Dorothy Riles, a resident in Cook County, Illinois and one of the key plaintiffs behind the lawsuit, claims that when she used the product she was left with bald patches, burns and scabs forcing her to wear a wig.

Sharon Manier, the other key plaintiff from Riverside County in California, similarly claims that upon using the product she immediately experienced scalp irritation and, after washing it out, she saw “significant” hair loss.
​
The lawsuit, submitted on 14 September by high profile attorney Mark J Geragos, lists a number of complaints of the product posted to the Amazon website. One read: “Don't use it! My 26 year old daughter is upstairs crying her eyes out because her hair is gone.”

The plaintiffs are demanding that L’Oréal is tried by jury and are seeking compensation on the grounds of false advertising, unfair competition, consumer fraud, deceptive business practices, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust enrichment, fraud and negligence.

(Sourse)