Recently, MassTortDefense posted about a proposed class action alleging lead in lipstick. See Stella v. LVMH Perfumes and Cosmetics USA Inc., No. 1:07-cv-06509, 2008 WL 2669662 (N.D. Ill. 7/8/08). The Northern District of Illinois denied the motion to dismiss consumer fraud claims. Now, a federal judge has thrown 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), opinion found here.

The plaintiff brought various claims, including unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty and violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The plaintiff asked the court to enjoin the companies from carrying the lipsticks at issue and requested compensatory damages to recover the money she allegedly spent on the products. She also asked for damages to cover the costs of medical monitoring to detect lead poisoning. Plaintiff contended she would not have bought the lipsticks if the defendants had revealed that they contained the lead.

In contrast to the ruling in Illinois, the New Jersey District Court found the plaintiff lacked standing to sue since she had alleged no injury, harm or ascertainable loss from having purchased the lipstick. Plaintiff’s allegations of a merely potential future injury were too remote and abstract to qualify as a concrete and particularized injury. Plaintiff had not alleged any present injury. Plaintiff’s mere demand for damages did not establish injury-in-fact either. Plaintiff bought lipstick and used the lipstick, only complaining that the lipstick’s alleged levels of lead were unsatisfactory to her. The FDA does not provide limitations on lead levels in lipstick. The FDA does not otherwise regulate lipstick. The plaintiff’s analogy to lead in candy was insufficient. Plaintiff cannot seek a remedy for a harm that she has not actually or allegedly suffered.

The plaintiff’s allegation of economic injury in a products liability action is insufficient to establish an injury-in-fact. The plaintiff had suffered no ill effects from use of the product, and had not alleged that any future harm was expected. The so-called benefit of the bargain injury could not sustain a claim under these circumstances.

What is interesting is that the court’s analysis focused not so much on the elements of the state statue, but the requirement of standing under Article III. The triad of injury in fact, causation, and redressability comprises the core of Article III’s case or controversy requirement. Plaintiff’s alleged injury was too conjectural and hypothetical to satisfy the injury in fact requirement. Plaintiff thus lacked standing to bring her claim. And standing cannot be “acquired through the back door of a class action.”