Latest Round in Lipstick Wars Goes to Defendants

We previously posted about a case in which a federal judge threw out  a purported class action against L’Oreal USA Inc. and Procter & Gamble Distributing LLC that accused the companies of selling Cover Girl and Maybelline lipsticks containing lead. Koronthaly v. L’Oreal USA, Inc., et al., No. 07-5588 (D.N.J. July 29, 2008).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has affirmed the decision. Koronthaly v. L'Oreal USA,  No. 08-4625 (3d Cir. 3/26/10).

Koronthaly purchased lipstick products manufactured, marketed, and distributed by appellees L’Oreal. and P&G. She alleged these lipstick products contained lead. The FDA does not regulate the presence of lead in lipstick, but Koronthaly asserted that the lipstick contained lead in greater amounts than permitted in candy by the FDA. Koronthaly alleged that she did not know when she purchased the products that they contained any lead, and when she learned of the lead content she immediately stopped using them. Moreover, had she known of the lead she claims she would not have purchased the products.

To prove constitutional standing, said the court of appeals, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) an injury-in fact that is actual or imminent and concrete and particularized, not conjectural or hypothetical, (2) that is fairly traceable to the defendant’s challenged conduct, and (3) is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision. Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 129 S. Ct. 1142, 1149 (2009). In this case, standing foundered on the first requirement, injury-in-fact, said the court.

Koronthaly’s argument that she was misled into purchasing unsafe lipstick products was belied by an FDA report finding that the lead levels in the defendants’ lipsticks were not dangerous and therefore did not require warnings. Moreover, Koronthaly conceded that she has suffered no adverse health effects from using the lipsticks. Koronthaly therefore had to fall back on only a subjective allegation -- that the trace amounts of lead in the lipsticks were unacceptable to her, not an injury-in-fact sufficient to confer Article III standing. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 564 (1992)(injury-in-fact must be accompanied by “continuing, present adverse effects”); Georgine v. Amchem Prods., Inc., 83 F.3d 610, 636 (3d Cir. 1996) (Wellford, J., concurring) (“Fear and apprehension about a possible future physical or medical consequence . . . is not enough to establish an injury in fact.”).

Furthermore, to the extent that Koronthaly contended that the injury-in-fact was the loss of her “benefit of the bargain,” she mistakenly relied on contract law, said the court. See Rivera v. Wyeth-Ayerst Labs., 283 F.3d 315, 319-21 (5th Cir. 2002) (plaintiff, whose only claim was that she “would like her money back” for having purchased a product that failed to make certain disclosures and allegedly was defective, did not have an injury-in-fact sufficient to create standing). Her lipstick purchases were not made pursuant to a contract involving lead levels, and therefore she could not have been denied the benefit of any bargain. Absent any allegation that she received a product that failed to work for its intended purpose or was worth objectively less than what one could reasonably expect, Koronthaly had not demonstrated a concrete injury-in-fact.

The dismissal was affirmed. In the lipstick wars, attention now will focus on Stella v. LVMH Perfumes and Cosmetics USA Inc., N.D. Ill., No. 1:07-cv-06509, dismissed 4/3/09; which is currently on appeal before the Seventh Circuit.
 

 

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://www.masstortdefense.com/admin/trackback/196918
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end