WEN lawsuit & answer 110314

8/9/2019 WEN lawsuit & answer 110314

1/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MICHAEL FLANNERY (SBN 196266)[email protected] GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP11620 Wilshire BlvdSuite 900

Los Angeles, CA 90025Telephone: (202) 789-3960Fax: (202) 789-1813

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

[Additional Counsel on Signature Page]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMY FRIEDMAN, JUDI MILLER,and KRYSTAL HENRY-MCARTHUR, on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarlysituated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GUTHY-RENKER LLC,

Defendant.

Case No.: 2:14-cv-06009-ODW-AGR

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINTFOR:

1.

BREACH OF WARRANTY 2. VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIA

UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW,Business & Professions Code§17200 et seq.

3.

VIOLATION OF CALIFORNIAFALSE ADVERTISING LAW,Business & Professions Code§17500 et seq.

4.

COMMON COUNTS/ASSUMPSI5. NEGLIGENCE — FAILURE TO

WARN;6.

NEGLIGENCE — FAILURE TOTEST; and

7.

STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 2:14-cv-06009-ODW-AGR Document 34 Filed 11/03/14 Page 1 of 32 Page ID #:153


2/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LEWIS WAGNER, LLPDina M. Cox (admitted pro hac vice)[email protected] Indiana Avenue, Suite 200Indianapolis, IN 46202Telephone: 317-237-0500Fax: 317-630-2799

LATHAM & WATKINS LLPDavid J. Schindler (Bar No. 130490)[email protected] M. Jackson (Bar No# 257554)

[email protected] South Grand AvenueLos Angeles, CA 90071Telephone: 213-891-1234Fax: 213-891-8763

Attorneys for DefendantGuthy-Renker LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMY FRIEDMAN and JUDIMILLER, on behalf of themselvesand all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GUTHY-RENKER LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 2:14-cv-06009-ODW-AGR

DEFENDANT GUTHY-RENKER

LLC’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S

FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright, IIAction filed: July 31, 2014Trial Date: Not Set

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL



3/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant Guthy-Renker LLC (“Guthy-Renker”), by counsel, hereby

responds to the First Amended Class Action Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial

filed by Plaintiffs Amy Friedman and Judi Miller (“Plaintiffs”) as follows. The

numbered paragraphs correspond to the numbering of the allegations in Plaintiffs’

complaint.

ANSWER

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Guthy-Renker admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this matter as a

putative class action seeking the relief enumerated, but Guthy-Renker denies that

this matter is appropriate for class action treatment. Guthy-Renker lacks

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of all remaining

allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and

therefore must deny them.

2. Guthy-Renker admits that the quoted language has appeared on its

website. Guthy-Renker denies that this matter is appropriate for class action

treatment. Guthy-Renker denies all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 2

of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.

3. Guthy-Renker denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 3 of

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.



5. Guthy-Renker denies that this matter is appropriate for class action








4/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

7. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ allegations in Paragraph 7 of the First

Amended Complaint reference insurance or settlement negotiations, Guthy-Renker

objects to those allegations because they are irrelevant and inadmissible. Guthy-

Renker admits that Plaintiff Friedman engaged in communications with Guthy-

Renker’s customer service representatives, and that Guthy-Renker asked questions

of Friedman to gain more information about her experience with the product

Guthy-Renker denies all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 7 of


8. Guthy-Renker admits that it has not recalled the WEN® Cleansing

Conditioner. Guthy-Renker denies that the product causes hair loss or that

customers have otherwise been damaged. Guthy-Renker denies all remaining

allegations contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.



of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and therefore denies them.


treatment. Guthy-Renker denies all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph

10 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.

11. Guthy-Renker admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this matter as a

putative class action, but Guthy-Renker denies that this matter is appropriate for

class action treatment.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE


treatment.


treatment, and Guthy-Renker denies that it engaged in unlawful practices. Guthy-



5/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Renker admits that venue is proper. Guthy-Renker denies all remaining allegations

contained in Paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.

14. Guthy-Renker admits that certain of its terms and conditions associated

with online purchases in the U.S. have dictated that the laws of the state of

California govern the purchase. Guthy-Renker denies all remaining allegations


PARTIES

15. Guthy-Renker lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs

Complaint and therefore must deny them.

16.

Guthy-Renker lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a



17. Pursuant to the Court’s February 27, 2015 Order Granting in Part and

Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 41), Krystal Henry-

McArthur’s claims were dismissed. No response to Paragraph 17 from Guthy-

Renker is necessary.

18. Guthy-Renker admits that its principal place of business is located at

3340 Ocean Park Blvd, Santa Monica, California and that it has transacted business

in this judicial district. Guthy-Renker denies all remaining allegations contained in

Paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint.

19. Guthy-Renker admits that certain of its terms and conditions associated

with online purchases in the U.S. have dictated that the laws of the state of

California govern the purchase. Guthy-Renker denies all remaining allegations




6/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

COMMON FACTS

20. Guthy-Renker admits the allegations contained in Paragraph 20 of


21. Guthy-Renker admits that the quoted language appears on its website

and that it has been in operation since 1988. Guthy-Renker denies all remaining


22. Guthy-Renker admits that its website contains or has contained the

statements quoted in Paragraph 22. Guthy-Renker denies that its statements are

false or misleading. Because Plaintiffs have failed to identify the “marketing

material” to which they refer, Guthy-Renker lacks knowledge or information

sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations contained in

Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs’ Complaint and therefore must deny them.

23. The written instructions for use received by Plaintiffs speak for

themselves.

24. To the extent the allegations of Paragraph 24 refer to written

instructions for use received by Plaintiffs, they speak for themselves. Guthy-

Renker denies that its instructions for use are false or misleading, or that the

product is dangerous or causes hair loss.




26. To the extent that Plaintiffs’ allegations in Paragraph 26 of the First

Amended Complaint pose a rhetorical question, Guthy-Renker objects to those

allegations because they are improper pleading allegations and irrelevant. Guthy-

Renker admits that its website references or has referenced the study results as

quoted. Guthy-Renker denies all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 26




7/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

26.1 Guthy-Renker admits that the WEN® Cleansing Conditioner is

manufactured and sold in multiple formulations. Guthy-Renker admits that the

“study” quoted in Paragraph 26 (the second Paragraph 26 referenced in Plaintiffs’

First Amended Complaint) applies to the four WEN® Cleansing Conditioner

formulations referenced by Plaintiffs. Guthy-Renker admits that the products

contain some similar ingredients. Guthy-Renker denies all remaining allegations

contained in Paragraph 26 (the second Paragraph 26 referenced in Plaintiffs’ First

Amended Complaint).




28. Guthy-Renker admits that its product is free of defects in design or

manufacture and that it is safe and fit for its ordinary and intended use. Guthy-

Renker denies all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs’

First Amended Complaint.






PLAINTIFF FRIEDMAN’S EXPERIENCE

31. Guthy-Renker admits that Plaintiff Amy Friedman purchased a WEN®

Hair Care Basic Kit containing WEN® Sweet Almond Mint Cleansing Conditioner

in January 2014 for $29.95. Guthy-Renker denies that the product is dangerous or

causes hair loss, and therefore no warning is or was required. Guthy-Renker lacks

1 Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint appears to have been numbered incorrectly, as the preceding paragraph is numbered the same as this paragraph.



8/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth all remaining

allegations contained in Paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and

therefore must deny them.

32. Guthy-Renker denies that the product is dangerous or causes hair loss

Guthy-Renker lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the

truth of all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs’ First

Amended Complaint and therefore must deny them.

PLAINTIFF MILLER’S EXPERIENCE

33. Guthy-Renker admits that Plaintiff Judi Miller purchased WEN® Hair

Care Basic Kits containing WEN® Sweet Almond Mint Cleansing Conditioner in

June 2011 over the telephone. Guthy-Renker admits that Plaintiff Miller received

additional shipments of the product up until approximately 2014. Guthy-Renker

lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of all

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended


34. Guthy-Renker denies that the product is dangerous or causes hair loss.




35. Guthy-Renker denies that the product is dangerous or causes hair loss.

Guthy-Renker is informed and believes that Plaintiff Miller contacted the FDA






9/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

PLAINTIFF HENRY-MCARTHUR’S EXPERIENCE



McArthur’s claims were dismissed. No response from Guthy-Renker is necessary.







ADDITIONAL COMMON FACTS

39. To the extent Plaintiffs’ allegations in Paragraph 39 of the First

Amended Complaint reference unverifiable and purported internet statements by

alleged consumers, Guthy-Renker objects to those allegations as being irrelevant

and containing inadmissible hearsay statements. Guthy-Renker denies that the

product is dangerous or causes hair loss. Guthy-Renker lacks knowledge or

information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of all remaining allegations

contained in Paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and therefore

must deny them.

40. Guthy-Renker lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding blog complaints and YouTube

videos. Guthy-Renker denies that the product is dangerous or causes hair loss.



CLASS ALLEGATIONS

41. Guthy-Renker repeats and incorporates its responses to Paragraphs 1-

40 above as if set forth fully herein.



10/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

42. Guthy-Renker admits that Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on

behalf of a class, but denies that this case is appropriate for class action treatment.

43. Guthy-Renker admits that Guthy-Renker, its affiliates, employees

officers and directors, persons or entities that purchased WEN® Cleansing

Conditioner for purposes of resale, and the Judge(s) assigned to this case would be

excluded from any definition of a class. Guthy-Renker denies that this case is

appropriate for class action treatment.

44. Although Guthy-Renker admits that Plaintiffs have purportedly

reserved the right to amend or modify their proposed class definitions, Guthy-

Renker denies that this case is appropriate for class action treatment.

45.

Guthy-Renker denies that this case is appropriate for class action



46. Guthy-Renker denies that this case is appropriate for class action



47.

Pursuant to the Court’s February 27, 2015 Order Granting in Part and

Denying in Part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 41), Plaintiffs’ alleged claims

in assumpsit were dismissed. Guthy-Renker denies that this case is appropriate for

class action treatment. Guthy-Renker denies all remaining allegations contained in










11/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9







VIOLATIONS ALLEGED

COUNT I

BREACH OF WARRANTY



53. Guthy-Renker admits that it sold WEN® Cleansing Conditioner in its

regular course of business, and that it sold at least one of several formulations of the

product to the named Plaintiffs. Guthy-Renker denies that this case is appropriate

for class action treatment. Guthy-Renker lacks knowledge or information sufficient

to form a belief as to the truth of all remaining allegations contained in Paragraph

53 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and therefore must deny them.

54. Guthy-Renker admits that WEN® Cleansing Conditioner costs more

than five dollars. All remaining allegations of Paragraph 54 are legal conclusions

to which no response is required.

55. The allegations of Paragraph 55 are legal conclusions to which no

response is required.

56. As to the named Plaintiffs, Guthy-Renker admits that is was the

manufacturer and seller of the product at issue. However, Guthy-Renker denies

offering any warranties. All remaining allegations of Paragraph 56 are legal

conclusions to which no response is required.



12/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10






59. Guthy-Renker admits that the WEN® Cleansing Conditioner it sold to

the named Plaintiffs was merchantable, free from material defects, and fit for its

intended use. Guthy-Renker denies that this matter is appropriate for class action



60.

Guthy-Renker denies the allegations contained in Paragraph 60 of









treatment. Guthy-Renker denies that the product is dangerous or causes hair loss or

other problems. Guthy-Renker denies all remaining allegations contained in









13/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11




COUNT II

VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW,

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200, et seq.



68. Guthy-Renker states that the California Business & Professions Code

cited by Plaintiffs in Paragraph 68 speaks for itself as codified in § 17200, et seq.

To the extent any of the allegations contained in Paragraph 68 are directed at

Guthy-Renker, Guthy-Renker denies such allegations in their entirety.


treatment. Guthy-Renker denies that the product is dangerous or causes hair loss



70.












14/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

73. Guthy-Renker denies that it has engaged in any unlawful, unfair, or

fraudulent practices, and Guthy-Renker denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any

relief.

COUNT III

VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA FALSE ADVERTISING LAW,

BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17500, et seq.





76.







79.

Guthy-Renker denies that this matter is appropriate for class action

treatment. Guthy-Renker denies that it has made any false or misleading

statements, and Guthy-Renker denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief.




treatment. Guthy-Renker denies that it has engaged in false advertising, and Guthy-

Renker denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to any relief. Guthy-Renker denies all

remaining allegations contained in Paragraph 80 of Plaintiffs’ First Amended

Complaint.



15/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

COUNT IV

COMMON COUNTS/ASSUMPSIT



in assumpsit were dismissed. No response from Guthy-Renker is necessary.
















COUNT V

NEGLIGENCE - FAILURE TO WARN




treatment. Guthy-Renker admits that it was responsible for testing, manufacturing

inspecting, distributing, marketing, supplying, and selling the product at issue to the



16/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

named Plaintiffs. Guthy-Renker denies all remaining allegations contained in










92.

Guthy-Renker denies that the product is dangerous or causes hair loss.








treatment. Guthy-Renker denies that the product is dangerous or causes hair loss or

that Plaintiffs suffered damages. Guthy-Renker denies all remaining allegations


COUNT VI

NEGLIGENCE - FAILURE TO TEST





17/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15






98. Guthy-Renker admits that it has a duty of reasonable care to its

customers as defined by the applicable law. All remaining allegations of Paragraph

98 are legal conclusions to which no response is required.



100.

Guthy-Renker denies that this case is appropriate for class action










COUNT VII

STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY



104. Guthy-Renker admits that, with respect to the named Plaintiffs, it was

the manufacturer and supplier of the product at issue. Guthy-Renker lacks



18/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16

knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the







treatment. Guthy-Renker denies that the product causes hair loss or that customers

have otherwise been damaged. Guthy-Renker denies all remaining allegations


108.

Guthy-Renker lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a



SEPARATE AND ADDITIONAL DEFENSES

In addition to the foregoing denials, Guthy-Renker reserves the right to rely

upon any of the following or any additional defenses to each claim asserted by

Plaintiffs to the extent that such defenses are supported by information developed

through discovery or by evidence at trial. Guthy-Renker further denies tha

Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries resulted from or were in any way connected with any act

omission, fault, conduct, or liability on the part of Guthy-Renker whether negligent

careless, unlawful, or of any nature alleged or otherwise, and denies that Guthy-

Renker was in any way negligent, careless, reckless, wanton, or unlawful.

By pleading these defenses, Guthy-Renker does not assume the burden of

proving any fact, issue, or element of a cause of action where such burden properly

belongs to Plaintiffs. Moreover, nothing stated herein is intended or shall be

construed as a concession that any particular issue or subject matter is relevant to

Plaintiffs’ allegations.



19/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(failure to state a claim)

1. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because the

Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(other defenses/presumptions)

2. Guthy-Renker is entitled to, and claims the benefit of, all defense and

presumptions set forth in or arising from any rule of law or statute in California

and/or any other law or statute that may be applicable.

THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

(lack of standing)

3. Plaintiffs have no standing to assert any of the claims set forth in the

Complaint or to seek restitution, either on their own behalf or as representatives of

any purported class, by reason of California’s Proposition 64, Article III of the

United States Constitution, and other applicable law.

FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(legal compliance)

4. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, because Guthy-

Renker has been in compliance with all statutes, regulations, and other laws in

effect at the time of the conduct allegedly giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims.

FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(adequate remedies at law)

5. Plaintiffs and the classes they purport to represent are not entitled to

equitable relief because they have adequate remedies at law, and no threat of harm

exists to support a grant of a temporary restraining order or injunctive relief.



20/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18

SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(estoppel)

6. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of

estoppel.

SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(waiver)

7. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole in part, by the doctrine of

waiver.

EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(laches)

8.

Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of

laches.

NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(plaintiffs’ negligence and failure to mitigate)

9. Plaintiffs’ alleged loss, damage, injury, harm, or deprivation alleged, if

any, was caused in whole or in part by Plaintiffs’ failure to exercise reasonable care

and diligence to mitigate these alleged damages.

TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(comparative fault and lack of causation)

10. Guthy-Renker avers that any award of damages in favor of Plaintiffs

must be decreased by the extent to which Plaintiffs’ own acts or omissions and by

the acts and omissions of their own principals and/or agents, or the subsequent,

superseding, or intervening acts or omissions of third parties, were a cause of said

damages. To the extent the foregoing is true, the damage alleged, if any, must be

diminished in whole or in part according to proof thereof at the time of trial.



21/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19

ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(state of the art)

11. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in that WEN® products were designed,

manufactured and labeled in a manner consistent with the state of the art at the

pertinent time.

TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(Guthy-Renker’s good faith)

12. Each cause of action is barred, in whole or in part, because Guthy-

Renker’s alleged actions, if any, respecting the matters alleged in the First

Amended Complaint, were at all times undertaken in good faith and in the absence

of malicious intent to injure Plaintiffs. Guthy-Renker’s alleged actions, if any, were

completed with legitimate business justification, provided adequate warnings of all

known or reasonably known risk associated with the use of its products, and

constituted a lawful, proper, and justified means of furthering the business of

Guthy-Renker. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are barred from relief under any allegations

contained in the First Amended Complaint.

THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(lack of notice, reliance, satisfaction of conditions)

13. Plaintiffs failed to give timely or any other proper notice of any

alleged breach of warranty to Guthy-Renker; Plaintiffs did not reasonably rely upon

any alleged warranty; Plaintiffs failed to satisfy all conditions precedent or

subsequent to the enforcement of such alleged warranty; and the alleged warranty

was appropriately disclaimed, excluded, fulfilled, or modified.

FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(claims unconstitutional)

14. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the applicable

provisions of the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, should it



22/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20

apply, and/or applicable Constitution of any other State or Commonwealth of the

United States whose laws might be deemed controlling in this case. These

provisions include, but are not limited to, the First Amendment to United States

Constitution, Article I, the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution,

the Excessive Fines Clause of the United States Constitution, the Commerce Clause

of the United States Constitution, and Section 2 of the Constitution of the State of

California because Guthy-Renker’s commercial speech regarding WEN was neither

false nor misleading.

FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(other causes)

15.

Any verdict or judgment rendered against Guthy-Renker must be

reduced by those amounts that have been, or will, with reasonable certainty, replace

or indemnify Plaintiffs, in whole or in part, for any past or future claimed economic

loss, from any collateral source such as insurance, social security, worker's

compensation, or employee benefit programs.

SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(idiosyncratic reaction)

16. If Plaintiffs sustained injuries or losses as alleged in the First Amended

Complaint, such injuries or losses may have been caused by an individual,

idiosyncratic reaction.

SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(settlement credits)

17. In the unlikely event that Guthy-Renker is found liable to Plaintiffs

Guthy-Renker is entitled to a credit or offset for any and all sums that Plaintiffs

have received or may hereafter receive by way of any and all settlements arising

from Plaintiffs' claims and causes of action. Guthy-Renker alternatively asserts its

right to a proportionate reduction of any damages based on comparative fault or the



23/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

21

percentage of negligence attributable to Plaintiffs or to any settling tortfeasor under

California law and/or the laws of any other State or Commonwealth of the United

States whose laws might be deemed controlling in this case.

EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(pre-existing and unrelated conditions)

18. If Plaintiffs sustained injuries or losses as alleged in the First Amended

Complaint, such injuries or losses resulted from Plaintiffs’ pre-existing and/or

unrelated medical, genetic, and/or environmental conditions, diseases, or illnesses,

subsequent medical conditions or natural courses of conditions for which Guthy-

Renker is not responsible.

NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(lack of causation)

19. Any conduct on the part of Guthy-Renker allegedly causing Plaintiffs

alleged injuries was not a substantial cause or factor of actual injury or damage, if

any.

TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(no breach of warranty)

20. Guthy-Renker did not breach any implied warranties or any warranties

created by law.

TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(no damages)

21. To the extent that Plaintiffs purport to seek relief on behalf of any

person who has not suffered any damages, the Complaint violates Guthy-Renker’s

right to due process under the United States and California Constitutions.



24/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22

TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(fees not recoverable)

22. To the extent Plaintiffs seek recovery of attorney’s fees, such fees are

not recoverable.

TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(no punitive damages)

23. Plaintiffs are not entitled to punitive damages because they cannot

meet the standard required for an award of such damages.

TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(not appropriate for class action treatment)

24.

The claims in the Complaint are barred, in whole or in part, because

this case is not appropriate for class or representative treatment for a variety of

reasons, including but not limited to the following: the purported class is not

ascertainable or certifiable as such; Plaintiffs’ claims are not typical of those of the

purported class; the named Plaintiffs are not adequate representatives of the alleged

class that Plaintiffs seek to represent; Plaintiffs’ claims do not present common

issues and individual issues will predominate; class treatment will not be

manageable or superior; and the purported class has not suffered class-wide injury.

TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(accord, satisfaction and prior release)

25. Some of Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by accord and satisfaction, or

prior release.

TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(no causal connection)

26. There is no causal connection between any conduct of Guthy-Renker

and any alleged loss or damage which Plaintiffs contends they have sustained.



25/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23

TWENTY- SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(statute of limitations or repose)

27. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable

statute of limitations and/or statutes of repose, including but not limited to

California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 335.1, 338, and 343, California Civil Code §

1783, and California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208.

TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(assumed risk)

28. Plaintiffs have full knowledge of all the risks, dangers, and hazards, if

any there were, and nevertheless voluntarily and with full appreciation of the

amount of danger involved, assumed the risk of loss to themselves.

TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(safe harbor)

29. The cause of action for violation of California Business and

Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. is barred by the safe harbor provided by

Guthy-Renker’s compliance with federal and/or state laws and regulations. See

Cel-Tech Comm., Inc. v. Los Angeles Cellular Tel. Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 182

(1999).

THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(nonjoinder of indispensable parties)

30. The First Amended Complaint should be dismissed for nonjoinder of

indispensable parties.

THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(other causes)

31. If Plaintiffs suffered or sustained any loss, injury or damage, that loss,

injury or damage was proximately caused and contributed to by persons and entities

other than Guthy-Renker over whom Guthy-Renker exercised no control and had



26/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24

no opportunity to anticipate or right to control, and with whom Guthy-Renker had

no legal relationship by which liability could be attributed to it, including Plaintiffs

themselves. Therefore the liability of all responsible parties, named or unnamed

should be apportioned according to their proportionate degree of responsibility,

then the liability of Guthy-Renker, if any, should be reduced accordingly.

THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(normal course of business)

32. Guthy-Renker is not liable for the acts alleged in the First Amended

Complaint as their actions were carried out in the normal course of marketing and

manufacturing consumer products, and were necessarily incident to the rendition of

goods and services.

THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(no damages)

33. Guthy-Renker asserts that Plaintiffs have not been damaged in any

amount by the conduct, acts or omissions of Guthy-Renker. Furthermore, there are

no amounts to be restored to Plaintiffs in that Guthy-Renker has not taken or

retained any property or monies that they were not entitled to, nor have Plaintiffs

given up any property or monies to Guthy-Renker that they were entitled to keep.

THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(unjust enrichment)

34. Guthy-Renker asserts that Plaintiff would be unjustly enriched if

allowed to recover any sums claimed to be due under the First Amended

Complaint.

THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(punitive damages barred)

35. Any punitive damages claimed by Plaintiffs are in violation of and are

barred by the Constitution of the United States, including, but not limited to, the



27/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25

Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses contained in the Fifth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the United States Constitution; the Excessive Fines Clause of the

Eighth Amendment to the United States; the Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth

Amendment to the United States Constitution; the Tenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution; and common law, public policy, and applicable statutes and

court rules.

THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(no oppressive, fraudulent or malicious acts)

36. To the extent California law is held to apply, Guthy-Renker alleges

that to the extent that Plaintiffs seek punitive or exemplary damages for an alleged

act or omission of Guthy-Renker, no act or omission was oppressive, fraudulent, or

malicious, under California Civil Code § 3294. Therefore, any award of punitive or

exemplary damages is barred. Any claim for punitive or exemplary damages is also

barred under California Civil Code § 3294(b).

THIRTY-SEVENTHN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(speculative damages)

37.

The First Amended Complaint, and each purported claim contained

therein, is barred, in whole or in part, because the alleged sums to be restored to

allegedly injured parties, if any, are speculative, uncertain, and incapable of

calculation; thus, it is impossible to ascertain and allocate such alleged sums.

THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(election of remedies)

38. The doctrine of election of remedies bars Plaintiffs’ ability to recover

under all the causes of action alleged in the First Amended Complaint.



28/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26

THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(mootness)

39. The claims of the First Amended Complaint are barred to the extent

they have become moot.

FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(failure to plead fraud with particularity)

40. Plaintiffs have failed to plead their fraud claim with the particularity

required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(modification or alteration of product)

41.

The proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries was a modification

or alteration of the products at issue, which was not reasonably expected by Guthy-

Renker. Any injuries or expenses incurred by Plaintiffs were not caused by Guthy-

Renker, but may have been proximately caused, in whole or part, by the unforeseen

alteration, unintended use, misuse, or abuse of the products referenced in Plaintiffs


FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(improper joinder)

42. The Complaint improperly joins Plaintiffs in the causes of action

asserted against Guthy-Renker because Plaintiffs’ right to relief, if any, does not

arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or

occurrences, and Plaintiffs’ do not involve common questions of fact or law.

FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(not misleading)

43. The business practices and or marketing statements of which Plaintiffs

complain through their California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200 and

17500 claims in the First Amended Complaint are not likely to mislead anyone.



29/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27

FORTY-FORTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE(other affirmative defenses)

44. Guthy-Renker presently has sufficient knowledge or information upon

which to form a belief as to whether Guthy-Renker may have other, as yet unstated

affirmative defenses available. Therefore, Guthy-Renker reserves the right to assert

additional affirmative defenses in the event that discovery or any other investigation

indicates they would be appropriate.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Guthy-Renker denies that Plaintiffs or others are entitled to the relief sought

in the Prayer for Relief, or to any relief at all. Guthy-Renker further denies that this

case is appropriate for certification as a class action.

WHEREFORE, Guthy-Renker prays for judgment as follows:

1. That Plaintiffs take nothing by the First Amended Complaint;

2. That the Court enter judgment dismissing the First Amended

Complaint against Guthy-Renker, with prejudice;

3. That the Court award Guthy-Renker its reasonable expenses and costs

incurred in the defense of the First Amended Complaint; and

4. That the Court grant Guthy-Renker such relief as the Court may deem

proper.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//



30/61

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28

JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 38-1 of

the Local Rules for the Central District of California, Guthy-Renker hereby

demands a trial by jury.DATED: March 27, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Jonathan M. Jackson

LEWIS WAGNER, LLPDina M. Cox

LATHAM & WATKINS LLPDavid J. SchindlerJonathan M. Jackson

Attorneys for Defendant Guthy-Renker LLC



31/61

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

NATURE OF THE ACTION

Plaintiffs Amy Friedman, Judi Miller, and Krystal Henry-McArthur

(collectively “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

by their undersigned attorneys, allege as follows:

1. This is a class action brought by Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves

and other similarly situated persons, against Guthy-Renker LLC (“Guthy-Renker ”

or “Defendant”). Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable remedies for themselves

and the Class (defined in ¶ 41, below), which includes consumers who have

purchased WEN Cleansing Conditioner haircare products, in the following

variations: Sweet Almond Mint, Lavender, Pomegranate and Summer HoneyPeach (“WEN Cleansing Conditioner” or the “Products”).

2. As described below, an inherent design and/or manufacturing defect

in Defendant’s WEN Cleansing Conditioner causes significant hair loss

Defendant provides no warning about this consequence and, in fact, makes

numerous assertions about the gentle nature of the product. For example, on its

website, Defendant makes statements such as, “WEN® is gentle enough to use

every day” and “WEN® isn't like an ordinary shampoo so you want to use more of

it, not less. You can never use too much! The more you use, the better the results. ”

These statements and others, which related uniformly to all the Products, were and

are false and have harmed Plaintiffs and the Class. In fact, WEN products use

numerous harsh chemicals and known human allergens, such as

Hydroxycitronellal. As a result of the defective nature of the Products, they were

and are unfit for their intended use and purpose.

3. Once the hair loss caused by WEN Cleansing Conditioner begins, it

can often continue for weeks before abating, even if the consumer immediately

discontinues use of the product. The hair loss is not de minimus — consumers who

suffer hair loss often lose one quarter to one third of their hair, or more.



32/61

2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiffs have suffered injury in fact and loss of money or property as the result of

their use of WEN Cleansing Conditioner.

4. This action arises from Defendant’s failure, despite its longstanding

knowledge of a material design defect, to disclose and/or warn Plaintiffs and other

consumers that WEN Cleansing Conditioner can and does cause substantial hair

loss. Indeed, not only did Defendant fail to warn consumers, it actively concealed

customers’ comments concerning hair loss, by blocking and/or erasing such

comments from the WEN Facebook page.

5. Further, based on inherent defects in the formula and/or manufacture

of the WEN Cleansing Conditioner, Defendant knew or should have known that itswarranties were being breached by the hair loss caused by the Products. Defendant

knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and Class members would suffer

damages as the result of the hair loss caused by WEN Cleansing Conditioner

Defendant concealed these facts from Class members, including Plaintiffs

Defendant’s failure to disclose this defect about which it knew or should have

known constitutes both an actionable misrepresentation and an unfair, unlawful

fraudulent, and deceptive business practice.

6. Plaintiffs and other Class members have been damaged by

Defendant’s concealment and non-disclosure of the defective nature of the

Products, because they were misled into purchasing WEN Cleansing Conditioner

of a quality and value different than they were promised. Guthy-Renker has

known about this issue for at least four years as the result of public complaints.

Guthy-Renker also knew or should have known about the hair loss issues caused

by WEN Cleansing Conditioner as the result of pre-release formulation and testing

Notwithstanding these complaints, Defendant has failed and/or refused to provide

an adequate remedy.



33/61

3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7. Perhaps most striking about this situation is Defendant’s clear and

unambiguous knowledge of the hair loss caused by WEN Cleansing Conditioner.

For example, after complaining about hair loss caused by WEN Cleansing

Conditioner to the United States Food and Drug Administration, Plaintiff Friedman

received electronic communications from Defendant’s consumer affairs

department. One of these emails included more than two-dozen comprehensive

questions concerning Plaintiff Friedman’s use of WEN Cleansing Conditioner

Discovery in this litigation will undoubtedly demonstrate that Defendant

formulated these questions long ago and has repeatedly used them with

complaining consumers. Plaintiff Friedman subsequently receivedcommunications from Defendant’s apparent insurer, Chubb. Rather than address

this systemic problem, Defendant is apparently attempting to payoff consumers on

the cheap, sweep this problem under the rug and continue its lucrative business

selling its defective WEN Cleansing Conditioner.

8. Despite notice and knowledge of the problems caused by WEN

Cleansing Conditioner from the numerous consumer complaints it has received

information from third parties (including the United States Food and Drug

Administration), Guthy-Renker has not recalled the WEN Cleansing Conditioner,

or offered its customers proper compensation for their damages.

9. Had Plaintiffs and other Class members known about the problems

caused by WEN Cleansing Conditioner at the time of purchase, they would not

have purchased the product.

10.

As a result of Defendant’s practices, Plaintiffs and the other Class

members have suffered injury in fact, including economic damages.

11. Plaintiffs therefore bring this action on behalf of themselves and a

proposed Class of similarly situated purchasers of Guthy-Renker ’s WEN Cleansing

Conditioner.



34/61

4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction of this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1332 of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 because: (i) there are 100

or more class members, (ii) there is an aggregate amount in controversy exceeding

$5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and (iii) there is minimal diversity

because at least one plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states. This

Court has supplemental jurisdiction over any state law claims pursuant to 28U.S.C. § 1367.

13. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391 inasmuch

as the unlawful practices are alleged to have been directed from this District.

Specifically, Defendant Guthy-Renker has its principal place of business in this

District, and Defendant regularly conducts and directs its business in and from this

District.

14. According to Defendant Guthy-Renker, the laws of the state of

California are to govern all purchases of the products at issue.

PARTIES

15. During all times relevant to this suit, Plaintiff, Amy Friedman

(“Friedman” or “Plaintiff Friedman”), has been a resident of the State of Florida,

and currently resides in St. Petersburg, Florida.

16.

During all times relevant to this suit, Plaintiff, Judi Miller (“Miller” or

“Plaintiff Miller”), has been a resident of the State of Maryland, and currently

resides in Glenwood, Maryland.



35/61

5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17. During all times relevant to this suit, Plaintiff, Krystal Henry-

McArthur (“Henry-McArthur” or “Plaintiff Henry-McArthur”), has been a resident

of the State of Florida, and currently resides in Tampa, Florida.

18.

Defendant Guthy-Renker is an American corporation whose principal

place of business is located at 3340 Ocean Park Blvd, Santa Monica, California

At all times relevant to this complaint Defendant has transacted business in this

judicial district and has directed its international operations from this district

throughout the United States and the world.

19. According to Defendant Guthy-Renker, any and all claims regarding

its WEN Cleansing Conditioner are governed by the laws of the state of California.COMMON FACTS

20. At all relevant times herein, Defendant has developed, manufactured

marketed, sold and distributed WEN Cleansing Conditioner throughout the United

States.

21. On its website (www.guthy-renker.com) Defendant bills itself as

“direct marketing pioneers” and “one of the largest and most respected direct

marketing companies in the world, with distribution in 68 countries.” Defendant’s

website also indicates it has been in operation since 1988. Defendant sells its

products predominantly through celebrity-driven infomercials. The strong

majority of Defendant’s sales occur by phone. Guthy-Renker is best known for its

promotion and sale of Proactive Solution, but it sells six other beauty-related

products — including WEN haircare products.

22.

In its marketing materials and on the website for WEN haircare

products (www.wen.com), Defendant makes a variety of false and/or misleading

statements about WEN Cleansing Conditioner, including, but not limited to, the

following:

It seems like I'm using a lot of product. Can I use too much?


http://www.guthy-renker.com/http://www.guthy-renker.com/http://www.guthy-renker.com/http://www.wen.com/http://www.wen.com/http://www.wen.com/http://www.wen.com/http://www.guthy-renker.com/


36/61

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WEN® isn't like an ordinary shampoo so you want to use more of it, notless. You can never use too much! The more you use, the better theresults.

(emphasis added).

Should I use the Cleansing Conditioner every day?That's up to you. Some people like to wash their hair daily. Others will go aday or two between washings. Although WEN® is gentle enough to useevery day, if you don't, you can combine 4-6 pumps of CleansingConditioner with a quarter-size amount of Styling Creme in a spray bottlewith water. Shake vigorously to mix completely. Spritz it on 12-18 inchesabove hair to provide a light mist. Shake out and restyle or fluff up yourhair!

(emphasis added).

Rinse hair thoroughly. Apply WEN® into your palms and rub together. Use10-16 pumps for short hair, 16-24 for medium length hair and 24-32 pumps

for long hair. If your hair is longer/thicker you may need to increase theamount of pumps.

(emphasis added).

Apply to scalp and hair, adding a splash of water to evenly distribute.WEN® has no harsh detergents or sodium lauryl sulfate, so it won't lather.Massage thoroughly into hair and leave on for the remainder of yourshower.

(emphasis added).

“WEN® Cleansing Conditioner is a revolutionary new concept in haircare. A 5-in-1 formula, this one product takes the place of your shampoo,conditioner, deep conditioner, detangler and leave-in conditioner. It cleanseshair thoroughly without lathering or harsh ingredients. It's designed notto strip your hair and scalp of natural oils, leaving your hair with morestrength, moisture, manageability and better color retention.

(emphasis added).

23. The instructions for using WEN Cleansing Conditioner does not vary between scents, and states:

CLEANSING YOUR HAIR IN 3 EASY STEPS:Step 1:Rinse hair thoroughly. Apply WEN® into your palms and rub together.Use 10-16 pumps for short hair, 16-24 for medium length hair and 24-32

pumps for long hair. If your hair is longer/thicker you may need toincrease the amount of pumps.



37/61

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Step 2:Apply to scalp and hair, adding a splash of water to evenly distribute.WEN® has no harsh detergents or sodium lauryl sulfate, so it won'tlather. Massage thoroughly into hair and leave on for the remainder ofyour shower.

Step 3:Rinse thoroughly and completely, massaging scalp and running fingersthrough to the ends.

ADDITIONAL USAGE TIPS:Apply 1/2 to 1 pump depending on hair length and texture as a leave-inconditioner to soaking wet hair. For best results, we highly suggest youcleanse, rinse and repeat, using half the recommended pumps for the first

cleanse, and the remaining half for the second cleanse. Unlike manyordinary shampoos, you may find you don't need to cleanse as often.

24. The emphasized statements are false and/or misleading, and through

the instructions on the product, Defendant expressly instructs consumers to use

tremendous amounts of the product, reinforcing these statements with assertions

that the product is gentle and you cannot possibly use too much. Defendant

encourages consumers to leave the product in their hair for long periods, but failsto provide direct instructions concerning the duration of application. Indeed

Defendant also encourages consumers to leave small amounts of the product in

their hair as a “leave-in conditioner ” and not wash it out at all. In reality, use of

Defendant’s product can and does cause significant hair loss when used in

accordance with Defendant’s limited instructions.

25. Due to Defendant’s false and misleading statements, Class members

purchased WEN Cleansing Conditioner with no reason to suspect or know the

dangers occasioned by use of the Products, and used tremendous amounts of the

product on their hair as instructed. Not until hair loss began could a Class member

have any reason to suspect that WEN Cleansing Conditioner is defective, and even

then might not immediately make the connection.



38/61

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26. Rather than acknowledging the dangers of using WEN Cleansing

Conditioner, Defendant further reinforces its false statements with summary of a

patently misleading “study”. Defendant’s “Features” study states:

In a 3-week study of users of WEN® Cleansing Conditioner, up to:

100% said hair was more moisturized!

97% noticed that WEN® added more shine!

95% reported that hair became more manageable

However, Defendant goes on to state (in much smaller print) that these results are

“not typical.” If the results are not typical, what purpose does this information

serve, other than to mislead potential consumers into purchasing Defendant’sdefective product?

26. Defendant sells its WEN Cleansing Conditioner in four different

scents: Sweet Almond Mint, Pomegranate, Lavender and Summer Honey Peach

The “study” quoted above applies to all four scents. In addition, the “Key

Ingredients" listed for all four scents does not differ:

KEY INGREDIENTS

Glycerin: A humectant that provides moisturizing benefits to the hair.

Chamomile Extract: Used for its soothing and calming properties.

Wild Cherry Bark: Formulated to help condition the hair.

Rosemary Extract: Designed to soothe hair.

Panthenol: Designed to help strengthen hair and restore resilience.

As a result, there is no discernable difference between the four scents other than

the smell.

27. As the direct and proximate result of Defendant’s false and misleading

statements, Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered injury in fact and a loss of

money or property through the out-of-pocket costs expended to purchase the WEN



39/61

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Cleansing Conditioner, as well as the costs of mitigating the hair loss occasioned

by Defendant’s products.

28. By marketing, selling and distributing WEN Cleansing Conditioner

from California to purchasers throughout the United States, Defendant made

actionable statements that WEN Cleansing Conditioner was free of defects in

design and/or manufacture, and that it was safe and fit for its ordinary intended use

and purpose.

29. By marketing, advertising, selling and distributing WEN Cleansing

Conditioner from California to purchasers throughout the United States, Defendant

made actionable statements that the ordinary use of the WEN CleansingConditioner would not involve undisclosed safety risks. Further, Defendant

concealed what it knew or should have known about the safety risks resulting from

the material defects in design and/or manufacture.

30. Defendant engaged in the above-described actionable statements,

omissions and concealments with knowledge that the representations were false

and/or misleading, and with the intent that consumers rely upon such concealment,

suppression and omissions. Alternatively, Defendant was reckless in not knowing

that these representations were false and misleading at the time they were made.

Defendant had exclusive access to data and research conducted prior and during

the design and manufacture phase of the development of WEN Cleansing

Conditioner that Plaintiffs and Class members could not and did not review.

PLAINTIFF FRIEDMAN’S EXPERIENCE

31.

After viewing advertisements for WEN Cleansing Conditioner

espousing its safe, innovative and gentle qualities, on or about January 29, 2014,

Plaintiff, Amy Friedman, purchased the Sweet Almond Mint basic kit directly from

Defendant for a price of $29.95. Plaintiff Friedman had previously used organic

shampoos and conditioners, which never caused abnormal hair loss. At no time



40/61

10

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

did Defendant provide Plaintiff Friedman any warnings concerning the potential

dangers of using WEN Cleansing Conditioner.

32. Within two weeks of beginning use of her WEN Cleansing

Conditioner, Plaintiff Friedman began losing substantial and abnormal amounts of

hair. Plaintiff Friedman discontinued use, but the hair loss continued for

approximately three more weeks. Ultimately, Plaintiff Friedman lost one quarter

to one third of the hair on her head. As a result, Plaintiff Friedman, a nurse

practitioner by profession, was forced to expend substantial sums on vitamins and

supplements to attempt to regrow her very long hair. Additionally, Plaintiff

Friedman was forced to undertake expensive cosmetic solutions, such as hairextensions, to mask the hair loss.

PLAINTIFF MILLER’S EXPERIENCE

33. Plaintiff Miller first purchased WEN Cleansing Conditioners (Sweet

Almond Mint and Pomegranate) in June 2011. She purchased the WEN Cleansing

Conditioners by telephone after viewing Defendant’s advertisements regarding the

safe, innovative and gentle qualities of its WEN Cleansing Conditioners. After

initial purchases, Plaintiff Miller received automatic shipments of WEN Cleansing

Conditioners every few months, until January 21, 2014, when she called and

cancelled direct shipments. Plaintiff Miller used the WEN products consistent

with the instructions, in some instances using the product as a so-called “spa

treatment” and leaving it in her hair for extended periods of time.

34. Beginning in January 2013, Plaintiff Miller noticed that she was

losing abnormal amounts of hair. Not suspecting the WEN Cleansing Conditioner

was the culprit, Plaintiff Miller only stopped using the products in June 2014, when

she finally realized that she was losing substantial amounts of hair only in the areas

in which she applied WEN Cleansing Conditioner, among other places, on the

crown of her head.



41/61

11

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

35. As a result of the hair loss caused by the WEN Cleansing

Conditioners, Plaintiff Miller was forced to expend substantial sums on vitamins,

supplements, and doctor visits to treat and attempt to regrow her hair and treat

other serious health issues caused by use of the products. Like Plaintiff Friedman

Plaintiff Miller also contacted the FDA concerning her negative experience with

WEN haircare products.

PLAINTIFF HENRY-MCARTHUR’S EXPERIENCE

36. Plaintiff Henry-McArthur is in the military (active duty), and

purchased WEN Cleansing Conditioner in June 2014 after seeing infomercials for

the products.37. A few weeks after she started using WEN Cleansing Conditioner

Plaintiff Henry-McArthur began noticing substantial hair loss and ceased using the

product immediately.

38. Plaintiff Henry-McArthur’s hair loss is further accentuated as a result

of the limited hairstyles available due to her military service.

ADDITIONAL COMMON FACTS

39. Plaintiffs’ experiences are by no means isolated or outlying

occurrences. Indeed, the internet is replete with examples of blogs and other

websites where consumers have complained of the exact same issues with WEN

Cleansing Conditioner. A very small sample1 of the numerous online

complaints — dating back several years — appears below:

http://community.qvc.com/forums/wen/topic/305237/hair-loss-after-

using-wen-products.aspxHair Loss After Using Wen Products Started 07/08/2012 at 10:26 AM in WEN | Last reply 11/15/2013 at 4:03AM byracerrn

1 Typographical and grammatical errors in the excerpted complaints have not beencorrected and remain as originally written.


http://community.qvc.com/forums/wen/topic/305237/hair-loss-after-using-wen-products.aspxhttp://community.qvc.com/forums/wen/topic/305237/hair-loss-after-using-wen-products.aspxhttp://community.qvc.com/forums/wen/index.aspxhttp://community.qvc.com/forums/wen/topic/305237/viewlast/hair-loss-after-using-wen-products.aspx#lastreplyhttp://community.qvc.com/communitymember/userid/602686/racerrn.aspxhttp://community.qvc.com/communitymember/userid/602686/racerrn.aspxhttp://community.qvc.com/forums/wen/topic/305237/viewlast/hair-loss-after-using-wen-products.aspx#lastreplyhttp://community.qvc.com/forums/wen/index.aspxhttp://community.qvc.com/forums/wen/topic/305237/hair-loss-after-using-wen-products.aspx


42/61

12

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I'm posting this note after losing massive amounts of hair in patches mostlyat the crown of my head, with smaller bald patches all over my scalp. Earlythis year (2012) I purchased the Wen i

Date post:	01-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	usa-today
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

WEN lawsuit & answer 110314

Documents