For beauty business news, beauty store owners turn to Beauty Store Business. Beauty business trends, beauty business profiles and more!
Issue link: http://beautystorebusiness.epubxp.com/i/581170
34 November 2015 | beautystorebusiness.com Beauty & The Law $1,625,000 to plaintiffs' attorneys. Each person who bought Organix products after Oct. 25, 2008, could file a claim and receive $4 for every product bought, up to a maximum of $28. The settlement binds all purchasers of Organix brand haircare and skincare products except for four people who filed with the court to opt out of the settlement. Vogue International agreed not to use the Organix name for any haircare or skincare product with less than 70% organic ingredients. ✔ NAD cases The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus reviews challenges to national advertis- ing and makes recommendations to the parties involved. It is not a government tribunal, but its recommendations carry weight with courts and anyone can bring NAD decisions to the attention of the FTC or state-enforcement agencies. Both NAD and the FTC focus on national advertis- ing and generally don't enforce against regional or local ads. As an example of a NAD case, in 2011 NAD reviewed The Gillette Co.'s claims for its Fusion ProGlide razors at the request of a competitor, Energizer Personal Care. Energizer said Gillette's ads that said the Fusion ProGlide has "Gillette's thin- nest blades ever" could be interpreted to mean that all of the ProGlide cartridge blades are Gillette's thinnest, but Gil- lette conceded that the fifth blade is slightly thicker than the first four and contended the ad didn't mean that all of the blades in a cartridge are the thinnest ever. Energizer also challenged Gillette's statements that the thinner blades were a comparison between the "leading blades" and Fusion blades. Energizer claimed these were misleading because the market leader was at times the Fusion razor and at times it was an Energizer razor. Gillette countered that the "leading" blades are the first four in a cartridge, not the market leader. NAD recommended that Gillette clarify that references to the lead- ing blades were only to the first four blades in a cartridge, and make clear that its comparison claims were comparing ProGlide and Fusion razors. NAD concluded that other claims that the ProGlide had "less tug and pull" were supported. Gillette stated it believes the ads were proper but agreed to implement NAD recommendations. ✔ Competitors' suits in federal court Competitors can bring claims in the federal courts under the Lanham Act against com- panies that misrepresent the competitor's goods or services. This law is frequently used in the beauty-products industry. A recent example from August 2015 is Duty Free Americas' suit against The Estée Lauder Cos. DFA did not sell Estée Lauder brands, and claimed that Estée Lauder contributed to false statements that the duty free-store operator could not effectively compete unless it sold Estée Lauder products. These state- ments were made by DFA competitors who were bidding to operate duty-free stores at airports. A federal appeals court held that a company in Estée Lauder's position could theoretically be liable for contributing to false statements made by other companies, but that in fact the plaintiff did not allege any knowing or intentional participation by Estée Lauder in the bidders' statements. For more information, the FTC maintains several helpful resources on advertising law, including its Advertising FAQ's: A Guide for Small Business, which this column draws from. ■ Jean Warshaw is a lawyer in private practice in New York City. She provides advice on business and environmental law. She can be reached at 212.722.2240. S P E C I A L W H I T E S A L E