Clinique Laboratories, LLC manufactures and markets skin care, makeup, and fragrance products. The company offers cleansers, moisturizers, makeup removers, exfoliators and masks, and uneven skin toners, as well as eye and lip care, hand and body care, de-aging, acne, redness, pore, and dullness products. It also provides makeup products, such as foundation, powder, concealers, blushes, bronzers, mascaras, eye shadow, eye liners, brows, lipsticks, lip gloss, lip liners, brush collections, and sets and gifts, as well as sun protection products and self tanners. In addition, the company offers three-step system, skin care, shave, and grooming products for men. It provides its products through s...
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Founded in 1968
The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Affirming the Dismissal of Complaint against Clinique Laboratories and Estee Lauder Relating to False Marketing of Cosmetic Products
Aug 15 14
The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming the dismissal of a complaint relating to the marketing of seven cosmetic products, concluded that consumers lacked standing to bring claims for products they did not purchase. Claims regarding the products the plaintiffs purchased were inadequately pleaded. Clinique Laboratories L.L.C. and Estee Lauder Cos. produced and marketed seven different cosmetic products sold under the Repairwear product line. Ellen MacKlin DiMuro, Margaret Ohayon and Dana Stein sued Clinique. The complaint alleged that no ingredient in Clinique's products could actually "de-age" the skin as Clinique claimed in its advertising. Clinique moved to dismiss, arguing the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring claims for Repairwear products they did not buy. Additionally, Clinique argued the plaintiffs failed to state viable claims for the three products they purchased. The district court granted the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs appealed. The district court properly dismissed claims for the four products the plaintiffs did not buy because there was no substantial similarity between them and the purchased products. The Second Circuit reasoned that each of the seven products had different ingredients. Furthermore, Clinique made different advertising claims for each product. Dismissal of the breach of warranty claims was appropriate. The complaint pleaded in a conclusory manner, with no supporting facts, that the Repairwear products did not conform to warranties and could not provide the promised "de-aging" benefits. The plaintiffs failed to state a plausible claim of entitlement to relief. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying amendment of the complaint where the plaintiffs previously filed three complaints in the action and failed to cure identified deficiencies.