320 F. Supp. 3d 578
S.D. Ill.2018Background
- Plaintiffs (nine individuals from eight states) sued L'Oréal/Soft Sheen-Carson over the "Amla Legend Rejuvenating Ritual Relaxer" kit, challenging the relaxer cream and the included scalp protector and alleging misrepresentation, warranty breaches, and physical/economic injuries.
- The kit contains five components (scalp protector, relaxer cream, shampoo, conditioner, oil moisturizer); focus centers on (1) whether the relaxer cream is unreasonably dangerous because it acts faster and (2) whether the scalp protector actually protects the scalp as advertised.
- The court previously certified NY and FL classes for certain claims (NY and FL unjust enrichment under Rule 23(b)(3); NY class also for NYGBL § 349 statutory damages; 23(b)(2) classes for injunctive/declaratory relief), with notice and opt-out complete.
- Plaintiffs’ liability proof depended heavily on expert Patrick Obukowho: (a) an experiment showing the relaxer cream relaxes hair very quickly and (b) an experiment showing the scalp protector is rapidly penetrated by the relaxer.
- The court excluded Obukowho’s conclusion that the relaxer cream is unreasonably dangerous as unreliable (no evidence of increased rate/severity of perceptible injuries), but admitted his scalp-protector penetration experiment as creating a genuine factual dispute.
- Court rulings in summary: decertified both 23(b)(2) classes and 23(b)(3) unjust-enrichment classes; granted summary judgment on claims about the relaxer cream’s dangerousness and on various other claims; left intact NYGBL § 349 class statutory-damages claim and claims related to the scalp protector and implied "no-lye = safer" representations; some state-specific omission and MMWA notice rulings followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dangerousness of relaxer cream | Obukowho: cream penetrates faster (pro-solvents/emulsion) → finishes too quickly → causes excessive bond breakage → unreasonably dangerous | L'Oréal: no evidence that faster action causes more frequent or perceptible injuries; consumer expectation that relaxers carry risk; Obukowho's causation/opinion unreliable | Court: summary judgment for L'Oréal; Obukowho's ultimate opinion excluded as unreliable; plaintiffs offered no proof of increased cognizable injuries |
| Scalp protector effectiveness / express warranty | Plaintiffs: lab tests show relaxer penetrates protector quickly; packaging expressly states it "protects scalp & skin" → misrepresentation / breached warranty and renders kit dangerous | L'Oréal: challenges experiment reliability, single-kit testing, lab vs. real skin, and representativeness | Court: Obukowho's scalp-protector test admissible; genuine dispute exists → claims survive summary judgment |
| Implied "no-lye = safer" representation | Plaintiffs: marketing + surveys (Dennis; L'Oréal's own research) show consumers interpret "No-Lye" and imagery as implying greater safety/less harshness | L'Oréal: "no-lye" is literally true (contains lithium not sodium hydroxide); plaintiffs' survey leading and unreliable | Court: Dennis survey admissible; jury question whether packaging implicitly misleads consumers about comparative safety → claim survives summary judgment |
| Classwide unjust enrichment damages (23(b)(3)) | Plaintiffs: seek full refund (product worthless) or other classwide relief | L'Oréal: plaintiffs failed to show classwide proof of damages; can't show product is worthless | Court: decertified 23(b)(3) unjust-enrichment classes (no classwide damages theory); NYGBL § 349 class for statutory $50 damages remains certified |
| Injunctive/declaratory relief standing (23(b)(2)) | Plaintiffs: seek injunctive/declaratory relief under NYGBL and FDUTPA | L'Oréal: named plaintiffs will not repurchase and so lack standing for equitable relief | Court: following Second Circuit guidance (Kommer), named plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief → 23(b)(2) classes decertified; individual injunctive/declaratory claims dismissed |
| Fraud/negligent-misrepresentation by omission (California) | Plaintiffs: manufacturer had duty to disclose unexpected safety risks | L'Oréal: no duty to disclose to consumers in CA absent direct transaction | Court: California omission-based claims dismissed; omission-based claims survive in NY, FL, IL, MO (duty recognized) |
| Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) pre-suit notice | Plaintiffs: class action pleading sufficed; some named plaintiffs later gave notice | L'Oréal: plaintiffs failed to give required pre-suit opportunity to cure | Held: MMWA claims not barred at filing; two plaintiffs provided notice; remaining named plaintiffs must give notice within 20 days or forfeit MMWA claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (rigorous admissibility review of expert evidence)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert analysis applies to non-scientific expert testimony)
- General Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (court may exclude ipse dixit expert conclusions)
- Amorgianos v. Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp., 303 F.3d 256 (2d Cir.) (rigorous examination of expert factual basis and methodology)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard; material fact definition)
- Heublein, Inc. v. United States, 996 F.2d 1455 (2d Cir.) (summary judgment principles)
- Stutman v. Chem. Bank, 95 N.Y.2d 24 (New York Court of Appeals) (no reliance requirement for NYGBL § 349 where deception causes a monetary loss)