Class Action

no!no!™ Hair Removal Products

Class Action

no!no!™ Hair Removal Products

May 2017: The case was dismissed because the parties reached a settlement agreement, the terms of which have not been disclosed.

September 2016: An amended complaint in the consolidated class-action lawsuit was filed. This complaint makes similar allegations (i.e., that hair removal treatments permanently remove hair and suppress hair growth when such claims are false) was filed. (Mouzon et al v. Radiancy, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1142, D. D.C.)

August 2016: The Cantley and Olivo cases were consolidated with the Mouzon case.

December 2015: A complaint, which consolidates some of the lawsuits against Radiancy, Inc. making similar allegations (i.e., that hair removal treatments permanently remove hair and suppress hair growth when such claims are false) was filed. (Mouzon et al v. Radiancy, Inc. et al, Case No. 15-cv-1926, D. D.C.)

October 2015: The Olivo case was transferred to a D.C. court so that it could be consolidated with the Mouzon case.

July – August 2015: Two more class-action lawsuits were filed against Radiancy, Inc. for allegedly deceptively marketing no!no! hair products as similar to “laser” hair removal or “professional” hair removal treatments, “superior” to shaving, and capable of permanent or “long term” hair removal by “suppressing” hair growth when, according to the plaintiffs, such claims are false because the no!no! hair device’s heated wire singes hair without destroying hair follicles or suppressing hair’s ability to regrow and is no more effective than a razor. Click on the links below to read the complaints.

March 2014: A class-action lawsuit was filed against Radiancy, Inc. for allegedly misrepresenting the quality and effectiveness of its no!no!™ hair removal products – including no!no!™ Hair 8800, no!no!™ Hair Pro, no!no!™ Hair Plus, and no!no!™ Hair Classic – as well as its return policy. Specifically, the complaint (which was originally filed in state court in 2014 and transferred to federal court in October 2015) alleges, among other things, that the company:

  • Advertises hair removal products as being “painless” and “the most effective, long-term hair removal system ever created” when, in reality, consumers experience pain when using the products and the products do not remove hair; and
  • States that the product line “carries a 30-day money back guarantee” but when the named plaintiff attempted to return a product within 30 days, the company informed her that she could not get a refund until she had used the product for at least 45 days.

(Cantley et al v. Radiancy, Inc., Photomedex, Inc., and Does 1-100, Case No. 15-cv-1649, E. D. CA.)

 


The Latest

Filters

Fisher Investments

Ad Alert

Fisher Investments

Unearthing the fees that Fisher charges but doesn’t disclose in some of its TV ads.


Show More