LaserAway, the largest aesthetic dermatology chain in the United States, has been hit with a series of lawsuits from customers and employees alleging physical injuries, deceptive sales tactics, hidden financing costs, wage-and-hour violations, and discrimination. The LaserAway lawsuits share a common thread: the company tries to send almost every dispute into private arbitration, and courts have split on whether its arbitration clauses actually hold up.
Laser Hair Removal Injury Case
The best-known courtroom loss for LaserAway came from a single patient. Miranda Swain received laser hair removal in 2017 and sued the company for negligence, fraud, battery, breach of contract, and consumer-protection violations, reporting burns, an open wound, tattoo mutilation, hyperpigmentation, and ongoing pain.1Midpage. Swain v. Laseraway Medical Group
LaserAway tried to force the case into arbitration based on an agreement Swain had signed on a tablet at the clinic. The Los Angeles County Superior Court refused, and in October 2020 the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, affirmed that refusal in a published opinion, Swain v. LaserAway Medical Group, 57 Cal.App.5th 59.
The appellate court found the arbitration agreement unconscionable on two levels. Procedurally, the contract was adhesive, handed to the patient without explanation just before a procedure, and written in confusing language. Substantively, it was one-sided: it required patients to arbitrate the kinds of claims they would typically bring, but carved out an exception letting LaserAway sue patients in court for unpaid fees. It also required patients to split the cost of a three-arbitrator panel, which the court called “the most expensive kind of arbitration.” Swain earned roughly $2,000 a month. The agreement also barred patients from seeking public injunctive relief.2vLex. Swain v. LaserAway Med. Grp., Inc.
The court rejected LaserAway’s attempt to invoke California’s special statute for healthcare arbitration agreements, Code of Civil Procedure ยง 1295, finding the company had forfeited the argument and failed to prove it qualified as a healthcare provider under the statute.3UC Berkeley Center for Consumer Law & Economic Justice. Center Successfully Requests Publication of Case Holding Arbitration Contract Unconscionable Swain’s case was sent back to Los Angeles Superior Court for trial, and her counsel was awarded costs on appeal.4Phillips Law. Firm Prevails on Appeal Denying Forced Arbitration in Laser Procedure Case
Deceptive Email Marketing Class Action
In April 2024, Washington residents Tracey Liu and Angela Neff filed a proposed class action against LaserAway Medical Group, Inc. in the Superior Court of King County, Washington. The case, Liu v. LaserAway Medical Group Inc. (Case No. 2:24-cv-00759), was later removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.5ClassAction.org. LaserAway Medical Group Sued Over Allegedly False, Misleading Marketing Emails
The complaint accuses LaserAway of flooding customer inboxes with marketing emails engineered to manufacture urgency. According to the suit, the company advertises discounts as “Today Only” or claims a sale is “Ending Tonight,” then extends the same promotion immediately afterward. The plaintiffs also allege some discounts were never calculated from a genuine prior price, and that “free” products or services actually required a purchase.6InjuryClaims.com. LaserAway Lawsuit The suit claims violations of Washington’s Commercial Electronic Mail Act and the state’s Consumer Protection Act.
Each named plaintiff seeks $75,000 in damages, and the proposed class could recover $500 per deceptive email sent to each member.6InjuryClaims.com. LaserAway Lawsuit LaserAway moved to compel arbitration. In October 2025 the court granted a motion to seal certain medical records filed in opposition to that arbitration request.7Justia. Liu et al v. LaserAway Medical Group, Inc., Docket Entry An investigation into the email marketing allegations by ClassAction.org was marked “complete” in February 2026, with no settlement announced.8ClassAction.org. LaserAway Fake Sales Lawsuits
Hidden Tattoo-Removal Financing Costs
A separate consumer case went after how LaserAway finances its services. Kirkor Halwajian filed suit on October 2, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against LaserAway, LLC, Great American Finance Holdings, First Electronic Bank, and Concora Credit Inc.9FindLaw. Halwajian v. LaserAway, LLC et al
Halwajian signed a promotional open line of credit for tattoo removal on January 12, 2024. He alleged LaserAway gave him “conflicting, confusing and inadequate disclosures” that hid the true cost of treatment, never told him the price of the medical services or the cost per session, and that the credit company later sent debt-reduction offers without revealing the underlying medical charges. His complaint raised claims under the federal Truth in Lending Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, the Rosenthal Act, and the state’s Unfair Competition Law, along with a claim for rescission of the credit agreement.9FindLaw. Halwajian v. LaserAway, LLC et al
On February 18, 2025, Judge Consuelo B. Marshall granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case. The court held that Halwajian’s contract contained a mandatory arbitration clause with a class action waiver, and that his request for injunctive relief under California’s UCL counted as “private injunctive relief” rather than the kind of public injunctive relief that would have been exempt from arbitration under McGill v. Citibank.9FindLaw. Halwajian v. LaserAway, LLC et al The parties were ordered to file a status report on arbitration by May 30, 2025.
Employee Wage-and-Hour Cases
LaserAway has drawn multiple employment lawsuits in California, several brought under the state’s Private Attorneys General Act.
Gonzalez PAGA Settlement
Jessica Gonzalez filed a representative action against LaserAway Medical Group, Inc. in July 2022 (Case No. 22STCV21526). The case settled in May 2024 for $350,000. Attorney fees took $122,500, PAGA penalties $35,000, litigation expenses $20,000, the plaintiff $10,000, and the settlement administrator $9,000. Individual PAGA payments to aggrieved employees totaled $8,750.10CABIA. Jessica Gonzalez v. LaserAway Medical Group, Inc. The specific labor violations underlying the claim were not detailed in available records.
Zakhrabova Combined Class and PAGA Action
In May 2022, Marina Zakhrabova filed a combined PAGA and class action in Alameda County Superior Court (Case No. 22CV011653). The complaint catalogues a long list of alleged labor violations affecting nonexempt employees: failure to pay minimum wages, overtime, and double-time; not properly factoring nondiscretionary bonuses into overtime calculations; off-the-clock work before, after, and during meal breaks; denied meal and rest periods; failure to reimburse business expenses like personal cell phones and internet plans; inaccurate pay stubs; unauthorized wage deductions; and failure to pay all wages owed upon termination.11Zakay Law. Zakhrabova v. LaserAway Medical Group, Inc., Complaint The case was still active as of August 2023, when a joint case management statement was filed. No final ruling or settlement appears in the record.12Trellis Law. Zakhrabova v. LaserAway Medical Group, Inc., Case Record
Pich Case: Unsigned Arbitration Agreement
Heather Pich filed a putative class action and PAGA claim in Los Angeles Superior Court (Case No. 23STCV01082), alleging wage-and-hour violations under the California Labor Code along with claims under the Business and Professions Code.13Casemine. Pich v. LaserAway, LLC, No. B331219
LaserAway again moved to compel arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, and in January 2025 the California Court of Appeal (Second District, Fourth Division) affirmed. The problem was simple: LaserAway never signed its own arbitration agreement. The contract explicitly said that “by signing this Agreement,” both parties were waiving their trial rights. Because LaserAway didn’t sign, there was no binding agreement. The court rejected the argument that drafting the document and distributing it through a secure online portal was enough to show assent, concluding it would not “presume [LaserAway] assented to the agreement when the terms of the agreement specifically call for signatures from both parties.”13Casemine. Pich v. LaserAway, LLC, No. B331219
Employment Discrimination Case
In late 2024, Alexis Conroy filed an employment discrimination case against LaserAway Medical Group, Inc. and an individual defendant, Brandi Gannaway. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No. 2:24-cv-10830). LaserAway moved to compel arbitration in December 2024. After settlement conferences before a magistrate judge in early 2025, the parties resolved the matter privately. A stipulation of dismissal without prejudice was filed on April 17, 2025, and the case was terminated the same day.14PACER Monitor. Conroy v. LaserAway Medical Group, Inc. et al
Why Arbitration Keeps Showing Up
Across both consumer and employment disputes, LaserAway consistently moves to push cases out of court and into private arbitration. Its customer contracts and employee agreements include arbitration clauses, and in the consumer context, class action waivers. The strategy has worked in some cases: the Halwajian court ordered arbitration, and the Conroy case settled after an arbitration motion was filed. But courts have also refused to enforce the clauses. The Swain ruling established published California precedent that LaserAway’s consumer arbitration agreement was unconscionable, and the Pich decision found the company’s employment arbitration clause void because LaserAway itself never signed it. If you’re a LaserAway patient or employee considering a claim, whether your dispute reaches a judge or an arbitrator will often depend on which version of the company’s agreement you signed and how a court reads it.