Per the suit, customers can go through the entire purchasing process on Morphe’s website for the products at issue without ever being shown the “hidden disclaimer,” which, according to the case, appears “in small, unbolded font buried within 30 lines of text.” “Defendants’ purported disclaimer does nothing to assist the consumer in understanding the known risks of using Morphe Eye Makeup, nor does it suggest that any known dangers exist,” the complaint states. The lawsuit argues that rather than provide a conspicuous warning about the alleged dangers of its products, Morphe instead includes online, for some items, “vague language and inconsistent statements,” such as “*Caution: Pressed pigments not intended for use in eye area.” These purported disclaimers, the suit says, “fall far short” of properly warning potential customers of the risks they could face should they apply the products to the eye area.
Morphe has also specifically directed consumers to apply the affected products to the eye area in instructions and product tutorials on its website and social media accounts, the case alleges. Included in the complaint are the following images, which respectively purport to depict Morphe's advertisements for Colorfix 24-Hour Cream Color Neons in the shade UFO (neon yellow) and Colorfix 24-Hour Cream Color Mattes in the shade Valentine (bright pink), even though these two shades allegedly contain harmful color additives: Moreover, the lawsuit contends that Morphe has encouraged consumers to use the products at issue near their eyes by including in its advertising pictures of models wearing the cosmetics as eye makeup. The suit claims the use of these euphemisms is confusing and dangerous given “pressed pigments” are essentially “indistinguishable” from eyeshadow, and the only reasonable use for them is for cosmetic application to the eye area. The lawsuit alleges Morphe LLC and co-defendants Morphe Management Holdings LLC, Forma Brands LLC and Forma Beauty Brands LLC have deceptively advertised their makeup products for use in a person’s eye area while at the same time attempting to hide the fact that the cosmetics contain harmful color additives.Īccording to the case, Morphe refers to some of its eyeshadow palettes as “artistry palettes” or “pressed pigments” in order to avoid responsibility for marketing the makeup as eyeshadow.
“Defendants actively instructed and encouraged consumers, including children, to use the Products in a manner which Defendants knew or should have known was inherently dangerous and unlawful,” the lawsuit scathes.Īccording to the suit, anyone who purchased the Morphe products at issue was injured financially in that they bought makeup they believed was safe and instead received items that were “unreasonably dangerous and defective.” Case claims Morphe fails to adequately warn customers Per the case, Morphe has nevertheless promoted and advertised these products for use in the eye area without warning consumers of the “known dangers” of applying the makeup as advertised.
Be sure to scroll down to see which Morphe products are mentioned in the lawsuit.
0 kommentar(er)
