The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York recently dismissed a proposed Class Action lawsuit against L’Oreal U.S.A., Inc. The allegations were that its mascara products contained per-and-polyfluoroalkyl substances often referred to as “PFAS”. This decision was made without prejudice.
Plaintiffs alleged on a “price premium” theory of injury. They asserted that they either wouldn’t have purchased the L’Oreal products or would have paid less for them, had they been cognizant of the fact that the mascaras allegedly contained PFAS.
The court, however, did not find these allegations sufficient to proceed with the case. According to a report by Harris Beach PLLC, the court dismissed the case on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to affirmatively plead that the mascaras they bought indeed contained PFAS.
PFAS are a group of man-made chemicals that have been in use since the 1940s. They are popular in various industries around the world due to their resistance to heat, water, and oil. While they are widely used, they pose potential health risks as they can accumulate over time and are not easily degraded in the environment. Exposure to PFAS has been linked to several health problems such as cancer, hormone disruption and immune system issues, which raises the significance of the allegations raised in this case.
The dismissal of this PFAS class action reiterates the importance of robust and affirmative pleadings. It signals to legal professionals and large corporation counsels the courts’ rigorous demand for clear presentation of facts and specific pleadings when engaging in class action lawsuits related to product liability.