The Morphe lawsuit is a 2022 class action accusing the cosmetics brand of selling dozens of eye makeup products that contained color additives the FDA has not approved for use around the eyes. Three consumers filed it in federal court in California, saying they suffered eye irritation, skin staining, and rashes after using the products the way Morphe told them to. The case never reached a verdict or a settlement. In January 2023, Morphe’s parent company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and the litigation was frozen in place, where it remains.
What the Lawsuit Alleged
Damato et al. v. Morphe LLC et al. was filed on April 1, 2022, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California by plaintiffs Crystal Damato, Amanda Montgomery, and Taylor Maxwell. The defendants included Morphe LLC, Morphe Management Holdings LLC, Forma Brands LLC, and Forma Beauty Brands LLC.1ClassAction.org. Damato et al. v. Morphe LLC et al. Complaint
The core allegation was straightforward. Morphe was selling eye makeup with synthetic color additives that the FDA specifically does not permit for cosmetic use in the eye area, while marketing those products through packaging, tutorials, social media, and influencer promotions for exactly that use. The complaint called the products “defective, adulterated, and misbranded.”2ClassAction.org. Morphe Makeup Contains Color Additives Unapproved for Use Around Eyes, Class Action Alleges
Federal rules define the “area of the eye” broadly, covering the eyebrow, the skin below it, eyelids, eyelashes, and the conjunctival sac. Any pigment used there must be authorized for that specific purpose; approval for other cosmetic uses doesn’t carry over. The complaint listed a long roster of pigments allegedly used in Morphe products without eye-area approval, including FD&C Red No. 4, FD&C Yellow No. 6, FD&C Green No. 3, and more than two dozen D&C and Ext. D&C dyes across red, orange, yellow, violet, green, and brown shades.1ClassAction.org. Damato et al. v. Morphe LLC et al. Complaint
The “Pressed Pigments” Workaround
Much of the case turned on labeling. Morphe called many of the products at issue “pressed pigments” or sold them in “artistry palettes” rather than as eyeshadow. Some carried small disclaimers stating “pressed pigments not intended for use in eye area.”
The plaintiffs argued this was a paper distinction. The products were “indistinguishable” from eyeshadow in look and function, and Morphe’s own marketing, tutorials, and influencer content pushed consumers to apply them on and around the eyes.3The Fashion Law. Morphe Facing Lawsuit Over Inherently Dangerous Eye Makeup Products The warnings, they said, were buried in ingredient lists or tucked away on the company’s website where a typical shopper would never see them, while everything else about the product told that shopper to sweep the pigment across their eyelids.
Products and Injuries
The complaint named more than 40 products. The list ran heavily through Morphe’s celebrity and influencer collaborations, including the James Charles palette, Morphe X Jaclyn Hill Volume 2, the Madison Beer Channel Surfing palette, Morphe X Lisa Frank 35B palettes, Morphe X Sour Patch Kids, and Morphe X Lucky Charms. It also covered numbered palettes such as the 35O Supernatural Glow, 35M Boss Mood, 35V Stunning Vibes, and the UV Grunge, UV Taffies, and UV Brights palettes, plus Colorfix 24-Hour Cream Colors, Suva Beauty Hydra FX Liners, M2 Always Online Gel Liners, Morphe Color Pencils, and P. Louise Bases.1ClassAction.org. Damato et al. v. Morphe LLC et al. Complaint
The three named plaintiffs said they bought Morphe eye makeup, used it as instructed, and experienced painful eye irritation, skin discoloration and staining, rashes, and inflammation. They said they wouldn’t have bought the products had they known what was in them.
What the Plaintiffs Asked For
The complaint brought eight causes of action: breach of implied warranty; unjust enrichment (in the alternative); violations of the California False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law; negligent failure to test; negligent failure to warn; and strict liability for defective design or manufacture.
The plaintiffs asked for compensatory damages, injunctive relief to stop the marketing they said was deceptive, and stated the amount in controversy exceeded $5 million.3The Fashion Law. Morphe Facing Lawsuit Over Inherently Dangerous Eye Makeup Products No individual influencers were named as defendants, though several of Morphe’s biggest collaborations were pulled into the product list.
Why the Case Is Frozen
On January 12, 2023, Forma Brands LLC, Morphe’s parent company, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. Around the same time, it closed all 18 of Morphe’s U.S. retail stores.4Retail Dive. Morphe Parent Company Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
The bankruptcy filing triggered an automatic stay on the class action. On January 13, 2023, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar issued an order staying the Damato case and closing it for administrative purposes. The parties had actually been in mediation when the bankruptcy intervened.2ClassAction.org. Morphe Makeup Contains Color Additives Unapproved for Use Around Eyes, Class Action Alleges
The bankruptcy court filings also showed how tangled Morphe’s finances were with its influencer partners. Court documents listed James Charles (James Dickinson) with $2.16 million in unsecured claims, Jaclyn Hill with $2 million, and Jeffree Star with $1.4 million.5Business Insider. Forma Brands Morphe Bankruptcy
Where Things Stand Now
A group of Forma Brands’ secured lenders had a “stalking horse” bid in place going into bankruptcy, and when no competing bids came in by the March 2, 2023, deadline, that offer stood. A newly formed entity, FB Acquisition, bought substantially all of Forma’s assets in a deal valued at $690 million in debt relief.6Retail Dive. Lenders Acquire Bankrupt Morphe Owner
Forma emerged from bankruptcy in April 2023 with Cliff Moskowitz as CEO and a new strategy focused on selling through retailers like Ulta Beauty, Sephora, Douglas, and Target rather than running its own stores.7PR Newswire. Forma Brands Successfully Completes Sale to Investor Group Morphe and Morphe 2 stayed in the portfolio.
The Damato v. Morphe case remains administratively closed under the bankruptcy stay. Because it froze before any substantive rulings or a settlement, the claims have never been decided on the merits. Whether the reorganized company carries ongoing exposure from the suit depends on the terms of the bankruptcy sale order, which transferred assets under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. Morphe continues to sell products through its retail partners and its own site.
Not the Only Brand Sued Over This
The Morphe complaint wasn’t a one-off. In April 2024, a similar class action was filed against Juvia’s Place in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging that nearly 30 eyeshadows across the brand’s palettes contained red and yellow color additives not approved for eye-area use.8Bloomberg Law. Juvia’s Place Accused of Using Harmful Additives in Eyeshadows That complaint tracks the Morphe theory closely, including claims of irritation, swelling, and staining.9ClassAction.org. Juvia’s Place Eyeshadow Palettes Unsafe for Use Around Eyes, Class Action Says Under federal rules, the manufacturer has to verify that each pigment in a product is authorized for where it’s meant to be used. When that gets skipped, consumers can end up with products marketed for their eyes that contain ingredients the FDA never cleared for that purpose.