Estee Lauder Inc. provides skincare, makeup, and fragrance products. Its skin care products include cleansers/toners, makeup removers, masks/exfoliators, moisturizers, and problem solvers, eye care, hand and body, repair, sensitive skin, and sun/sunless products. The company’s makeup products comprise face products, such as blushes, bronzers, compacts, concealers, foundations, and powders; brows, eyeliners, eye shadows, and mascaras for eyes; lip glosses and pencils, and lipsticks; and brushes and tools, nail lacquers, refills, sets/gifts, and foundation finders. It offers its products worldwide; and through department and specialty stores, as well as online in the United States. The company...
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Founded in 1946
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Dismisses a Cause of Action Under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act Against the Estée Lauder Companies Inc., Estee Lauder Inc. and Origins Natural Resources, Inc
Aug 31 13
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed a cause of action under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act against the manufacturer of a cosmetic product, finding the consumer did not plead with particularity how the manufacturer's wrinkle repair claims were false. The Estée Lauder Companies Inc., Estee Lauder Inc. and Origins Natural Resources Inc. (collectively, Origins) manufactures, markets and sells cosmetic products. In 2011, Origins launched a line of antiaging products called Origins Plantscription Anti-aging Serum. The marketing for the new line included statements that the serum had 88% of the visible wrinkle-reducing power of a prescription, was clinically proven to visibly reduce signs of aging in "just 4 weeks" and made skin "clinically firmer and smoother" (collectively, wrinkle-repair claims). Donna Greifenstein purchased the serum in September or October 2012 from Macy's for approximately $55 after seeing an advertisement for the product. Allegations for deceptive act element of claim are deficient. Greifenstein sued Origins alleging they fraudulently misrepresented the wrinkle-reducing capabilities of the serum. Origins moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The district court determined that dismissal was appropriate because the complaint did not plead how Origins' advertising claims were false. Greifenstein contended that the wrinkle repair claims had no "competent clinical evidence" to support them. The complaint however contained the allegation that Origins collaborated with the University of Strasbourg to test the serum. The district court found the mere existence of the study defeated Greifenstein's theory that the wrinkle repair claims lacked substantiation. Greifenstein's dissatisfaction with Origins' testing methods did not compel a different finding. To support her second theory of falsity, Greifenstein claimed there was in fact clinical evidence that the serumdid not have the advertised benefits. The district court noted the complaint did not specifically identify the clinical studies to which Greifenstein referred. Greifenstein's complaint did not satisfy the heightened pleading standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). The district court granted leave to amend the complaint.