The Biolage lawsuit against L’Oréal ended without any classwide payout to consumers. Filed in 2017, Price v. L’Oréal USA, Inc. accused L’Oréal and its subsidiary Matrix Essentials of falsely marketing three Matrix Biolage Keratindose products as containing keratin when a plaintiffs’ expert found they contained none. The case survived a motion to dismiss and won partial class certification in New York and California, but a federal judge decertified the classes in September 2021 over problems with the plaintiffs’ damages model. The two named plaintiffs settled their individual claims in 2022 for undisclosed terms. No claims process was ever set up for other buyers.
What the Lawsuit Claimed
Plaintiffs Brandi Price of New York and Christine Chadwick of California sued over three products in the Matrix Biolage Advanced Keratindose line: Pro-Keratin + Silk Shampoo, Pro-Keratin + Silk Conditioner, and Pro-Keratin Renewal Spray. Each was marketed for “over-processed, weak or fragile hair” using phrases like “Pro-Keratin + Silk” and “Formulated with Pro-Keratin and Silk.”1ClassAction.com. L’Oreal Matrix Keratin Lawsuit The products retailed for more than $20 each.2Top Class Actions. Matrix Biolage Shampoo Class Action Lawsuit Website Established
The 39-page complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:17-cv-00614), alleged that a subject-matter expert had tested the products and confirmed keratin was absent. It accused the companies of false and deceptive advertising under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, parallel state consumer protection laws, and warranty statutes. Price and Chadwick said they would not have bought the products, or would have paid less, if they had known.1ClassAction.com. L’Oreal Matrix Keratin Lawsuit
The Court Found the Claims Plausible
In October 2017, Judge Lorna G. Schofield denied L’Oréal’s motion to dismiss the bulk of the case. She rejected the argument that “Pro-Keratin” branding was somehow distinct from claiming the products contained keratin. “The fact that the advertisements did not use the word ‘keratin’ in isolation and instead used the word ‘Pro-keratin’ does not change the analysis,” she wrote, concluding that “defendants plausibly misrepresented that the products contain keratin.”3Legal Newsline. Hair Loss Class Action Against L’Oreal Gets Past Dismissal Motion
In August 2018, Judge Schofield granted partial class certification under Rule 23(b)(3). She certified a New York class and a California class, each covering state residents who bought any of the three Keratindose products from January 26, 2013 forward. Price represented the New York class, Chadwick the California class.4CourtListener. Price v. L’Oreal USA Inc., Docket She refused to certify a nationwide class and refused to certify fraud claims even in the two states, ruling that whether individual buyers actually relied on the keratin marketing could not be resolved with generalized proof.5Top Class Actions. L’Oreal Keratin Class Action Lawsuit Earns Partial Certification The claims that moved forward were specific New York consumer protection, breach of contract, and express warranty theories, along with California unfair business practices claims.
Why the Class Action Fell Apart
On September 29, 2021, Judge Schofield decertified both classes. The reason was damages. Under Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, a class action damages model has to match the plaintiffs’ theory of injury, and the model in this case did not.6PlainSite. Price v. L’Oreal USA Inc.
The plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Jean-Pierre Dubé, had run a conjoint survey to measure how much extra consumers would pay for products with keratin. The judge identified two fatal problems. The survey tested willingness to pay for “Pro-Keratin + Silk” rather than isolating keratin alone, so it could not separate the value of the keratin claim from the value of the silk claim, and the plaintiffs had never alleged the silk claim was false.7Top Class Actions. Judge Decertifies Class Certification of L’Oreal False Advertising Suit The plaintiffs also lacked basic sales data. They could not produce the quantity sold or the average retail price of the products in either New York or California during the class period, so there were no numbers to plug into the expert’s formula.6PlainSite. Price v. L’Oreal USA Inc.
Price and Chadwick asked the judge to reconsider. In December 2021, she denied that motion and declined to reopen discovery, finding no change in controlling law, no new evidence, and no clear error.6PlainSite. Price v. L’Oreal USA Inc. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which denied the appeal.8Bloomberg Law. L’Oreal Consumers Settle Claims Over Keratin Hair Products
What Consumers Got
Nothing, if you were not a named plaintiff. Once class status was gone and the appeal was denied, Price and Chadwick settled their individual claims against L’Oréal and Matrix Essentials. Bloomberg Law reported the settlement as of April 2022, and the financial terms were not disclosed.8Bloomberg Law. L’Oreal Consumers Settle Claims Over Keratin Hair Products There was no classwide settlement, no fund, and no claims process for other buyers of the Keratindose products.
The case never reached a trial on the merits. A federal judge found it plausible that the products were marketed as containing keratin when they did not, but the court never ruled on whether the labeling actually violated the law. The outcome turned on procedure: how damages could be measured across a class of buyers, not whether the marketing was deceptive.
Not the Same as the Hair Relaxer Cases
If you are searching for information on L’Oréal litigation, it is worth knowing that this Biolage keratin case is separate from the large multidistrict litigation involving chemical hair relaxers and cancer claims. That MDL involves different products and different legal theories from the Keratindose false advertising case.9Motley Rice. L’Oreal Hair Relaxer Lawsuit The Biolage Keratindose matter is closed as to the named plaintiffs, and buyers of those three shampoo, conditioner, and spray products do not have a settlement to claim from.