The Paparazzi jewelry lawsuit landscape centers on two main fights: a consolidated federal class action in Utah accusing the company of falsely marketing its $5 jewelry as “lead-free and nickel-free,” and a $1.9 million settlement the company reached in March 2025 with the Washington State Attorney General over pyramid-scheme and product-safety allegations. A separate California Proposition 65 case over cadmium in children’s earrings is also pending. Paparazzi has not admitted wrongdoing in any of them.
The Federal Heavy-Metals Class Action
Multiple class actions filed in early 2022 have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah under Johnson et al. v. Paparazzi, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00439, before Judge Ann Marie McIff Allen. The consolidated case now names 21 plaintiffs, including Crystal Johnson, Tamie Hollins, Irene Burgess, and Heather Gilbert.1PACER Monitor. Johnson et al v. Paparazzi, LLC
The litigation has moved slowly. In March 2025 the judge dismissed the first consolidated amended complaint without prejudice and gave the plaintiffs 30 days to refile. The operative pleading as of mid-2026 is a Third Amended Class Action Complaint, and Paparazzi’s motion to dismiss that version is still pending. The court has not decided class certification, and no trial date is set.1PACER Monitor. Johnson et al v. Paparazzi, LLC
What the Heavy-Metals Lawsuits Allege
The core allegation is straightforward. Paparazzi marketed its jewelry nationwide as “Lead-Free and Nickel-Free,” but the products contained lead, cadmium, arsenic, antimony, and nickel. The original Hollins complaint brought claims of negligence, strict product liability, unjust enrichment, and violations of New York’s General Business Law.2ClassAction.org. Hollins v. Paparazzi, LLC Complaint
The plaintiffs cited independent XRF testing of individual pieces. A children’s ring reportedly contained lead at 252,800 parts per million and cadmium at 98,200 ppm. Separate testing of children’s earrings found cadmium at 143,600 ppm and lead at 119,900 ppm, levels described as far above California’s regulatory limits for children’s jewelry.2ClassAction.org. Hollins v. Paparazzi, LLC Complaint3Tamara Rubin. Lead and Cadmium in Children’s Jewelry
According to the Hollins complaint, Paparazzi removed the “lead-free and nickel-free” language from its website sometime between November 2021 and January 2022. In December 2021 the company issued a statement acknowledging that some jewelry “may contain trace amounts of lead and nickel” while maintaining that its products complied with applicable safety regulations.4ClassAction.org. Paparazzi Jewelry Falsely Advertised as Lead- and Nickel-Free, Class Action Alleges
The Washington Attorney General’s $1.9 Million Settlement
In March 2025 the Washington State Attorney General’s Office reached a $1.9 million settlement with Paparazzi and its four co-founders, Misty Kirby, Trent Kirby, Chantel Reeve, and Ryan Reeve, resolving allegations that the company violated Washington’s Consumer Protection Act and Antipyramid Promotional Scheme Act. Paparazzi did not admit the allegations.5Washington Attorney General. AG Investigation Ends Alleged Jewelry Pyramid Scheme in Washington State6JCK Online. Paparazzi Settles With Washington
The investigation alleged Paparazzi ran a pyramid scheme and advertised, in Attorney General Nick Brown’s words, “too-good-to-be-true returns on investments.” Investigators also found that Paparazzi’s own internal testing confirmed some products contained lead and nickel despite being marketed as free of those metals, including items sold to children.7KOMO News. Utah Jewelry Company Paparazzi Reaches Settlement With Washington AG5Washington Attorney General. AG Investigation Ends Alleged Jewelry Pyramid Scheme in Washington State
What Washington Consultants and Customers Get
About 7,100 Washington residents who sold jewelry for the company were set to receive checks averaging $180 each. The consent decree also created two return programs, both required to be operational within 60 days of entry and open for one year.
The Inventory Repurchase Program lets current and former Washington consultants return unsold inventory purchased between January 2017 and March 2025 for 100% of the original purchase price, provided the pieces are in resellable condition with the original hang tag. The Buyback Program covers jewelry that failed lead or nickel testing, produced inconclusive results, or lacked test records; consumers and consultants can return those items for a full refund. Refunds are due within 60 days of the company receiving and verifying eligible returns.8Washington Attorney General. Consent Decree, Case No. 25-2-06781-5 SEA
Changes to How the Business Operates
The consent decree also rewrote parts of Paparazzi’s Washington business model. Consultant compensation can no longer be calculated primarily on products the consultant or their downline buys; it has to be tied to actual retail sales to end customers. Prospective consultants must receive an Income Disclosure Statement and wait seven days before signing anything or paying anything. Paparazzi has to keep electronic records of retail transactions and run random audits of those sales for ten years. Cancelled memberships get a 60-day full refund, and the company must repurchase currently marketable inventory from departing consultants for at least 90% of the original net cost.8Washington Attorney General. Consent Decree, Case No. 25-2-06781-5 SEA
These reforms apply in Washington. Consultants in other states are not covered by the decree.
Pyramid-Scheme Allegations and What Consultants Earn
The pyramid-scheme theory predates the Washington case. In August 2022, former consultants Geraldine Souza, Jennifer Carrol, and Jaime Robinson filed a counterclaim in a separate Utah federal case arguing that Paparazzi’s compensation plan was “heavily, if not entirely, dependent on recruiting and retaining” new consultants rather than selling jewelry to outside customers. The counterclaim described mandatory inventory purchases to qualify for bonuses and rank advancement built around recruitment, and alleged violations of consumer protection and anti-pyramid laws in Utah, California, Texas, and Idaho along with the federal Lanham Act. As of April 2023 the case was stayed pending compelled arbitration.9Behind MLM. Paparazzi a Pyramid Scheme, Leaks Case Counterclaim Alleges
Paparazzi’s own 2024 U.S. Disclosure Statement gives a sense of the earnings picture. It reports that 98.7% of participants lost money for the year. Only 0.6% earned a profit between $1 and $1,000, another 0.3% earned $1,001 to $5,000, and 0.4% earned more than $5,000. The company notes those loss figures do not include out-of-pocket costs such as travel, lodging, childcare, and shipping.10Paparazzi Accessories. U.S. Disclosure Statement for 2024
The California Proposition 65 Case
In November 2024 an organization called MONARCH, LLC filed a Proposition 65 enforcement action in Los Angeles County Superior Court, MONARCH, LLC v. Paparazzi, LLC, Case No. 24STCV29988. It alleges Paparazzi failed to warn consumers about cadmium in “Starlet Shimmer Gem Spider Earrings,” a children’s product sold in black-and-gold, orange-and-silver, and purple-and-silver variations. The complaint seeks a warning requirement and civil penalties. No settlement or judgment has been entered.11California Attorney General. Proposition 65 60-Day Notice, MONARCH LLC v. Paparazzi LLC
Income-Claim Inquiries by the DSSRC
The Direct Selling Self-Regulatory Council has opened two inquiries into how Paparazzi consultants describe the earnings opportunity. In 2020, Case No. 14-2020 examined social media posts touting “well over a 6 figure income,” the ability to “replace your full-time income,” and specific claims of earning more than $25,000 in 30 days. The DSSRC found those claims misleading because the depicted success was not typical. Paparazzi added an Earnings Statement Disclosure to its website but never provided a formal written commitment to follow the DSSRC’s recommendations, and at least one claim remained online. The DSSRC said it would weigh whether to refer the matter to a government agency such as the FTC.12BBB National Programs. DSSRC Case Decision, Case 14-2020
In September 2025, the council administratively closed a second inquiry, Case No. 229-2025, after identifying 12 Facebook posts by Paparazzi consultants made between 2019 and 2025 that promoted “unlimited earning potential,” “six figure” earnings, “full-time pay,” and “financial freedom.” Paparazzi removed ten of the posts and revised the other two to strip out the problematic language. The DSSRC accepted that as good-faith compliance.13BBB National Programs. DSSRC Administrative Closure, Paparazzi Accessories
Where Things Stand
Paparazzi remains an active company operating out of St. George, Utah, with all four founders still involved in daily operations.14Paparazzi Accessories. Founders The Better Business Bureau lists it as in business for 16 years and holds an “F” rating tied to a failure to respond to and resolve consumer complaints.15Better Business Bureau. Paparazzi Accessories BBB Profile The Washington settlement is final. The California Prop 65 case is pending. In the consolidated Utah class action, the outcome now turns on the court’s ruling on Paparazzi’s motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint.1PACER Monitor. Johnson et al v. Paparazzi, LLC