000003/01445338_1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 0:22-CV-62054

JANINE ZAMORA, MINDY COLLETTE,

JESSICA SCHOENROCK, EMILY EVANS, 

STEPHANIE COHEN SHALIT, 

CONDALISA LEGRAND, JILL KERNS, and 

ALEXIS MORGAN, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

DEMERT BRANDS, LLC, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CLASS ACTION

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

CONSOLIDATED AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Janine Zamora, Mindy Collette, Jessica Schoenrock, Emily Evans, Stephanie 

Cohen Shalit, Condalisa LeGrand, Jill Kerns, and Alexis Morgan (“Plaintiffs”), by their 

undersigned counsel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, bring this 

Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint against Defendant DeMert Brands, LLC

(“Defendant”) and allege as follows, pursuant to the investigation of their counsel and based upon 

information and belief, except as to allegations specifically pertaining to themselves, which are 

based on personal knowledge:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. Plaintiffs are customers who purchased for normal household use Defendant’s dry 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 1 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 2 -

shampoo products that contain dangerously high levels of benzene, a known carcinogenic impurity

that has been linked to leukemia and other cancers.

2. Defendant distributes, markets, and sells to consumers across the United States, 

both in retail establishments and online, certain dry shampoo products under the name “Not Your 

Mother’s” (the “Products”). 

3. The Products are not designed to contain benzene, and in fact, no amount of 

benzene is acceptable in dry shampoo products like the Products. Thus, the presence of benzene 

in the Products renders them adulterated and misbranded, and therefore illegal to sell under both 

federal and state law. As a result, the Products are unsafe and illegal to sell under federal law and 

therefore worthless. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(a), 352.

4. Further, although Defendant lists the Products’ ingredients on their labels, benzene 

is not among those ingredients listed. Thus, Defendant misrepresents that the Products do not 

contain benzene, or otherwise fails to disclose that the Products contain benzene. Plaintiffs and 

other Class members would not have purchased the Products, or would have paid substantially less 

for the Products, had Defendant disclosed that the Products contained or risked containing 

benzene, or otherwise not misrepresented that the Products did not contain or were not at risk of 

containing benzene.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. The Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332(d), because 

at least one Class member is of diverse citizenship from Defendant, there are more than 100 Class 

members nationwide, and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of 

costs and interest.

6. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant has 

purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business activities in the state of Florida. 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 2 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 3 -

Defendant has marketed, promoted, distributed, and sold the Products in Florida, and Defendant 

has sufficient minimum contacts with this state and/or sufficiently availed itself of the markets in 

this state through promotion, sales, distribution, and marketing to render the exercise of 

jurisdiction by this Court permissible.

7. Defendant is an “unincorporated association” under the Class Action Fairness Act 

(“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), and Defendant is, therefore “a citizen of the State where it has its 

principal place of business [Florida] and the State under whose laws it is organized [Florida].” See 

28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(10).

8. Venue is proper in this District, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391, because a substantial 

part of the acts or omissions giving rise to the claims brought herein occurred or emanated

within this District, Defendant has marketed, advertised, and sold the Products in this District, and 

Defendant has caused harm to members of the Classes who reside in this District.

PARTIES

9. Plaintiff Janine Zamora is and was at all relevant times a citizen and resident of

Pompano Beach, Florida. Plaintiff Zamora purchased for household use several Not Your 

Mother’s dry shampoo products, including Not Your Mother’s Clean Freak Refreshing Dry 

Shampoo – Original, approximately every 6 months since 2017, from either Publix Super Markets

in Fort Lauderdale, Florida or Target in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. For example, on or around

February 5, 2021, Plaintiff Zamora purchased one of Defendant’s Products. When purchasing the 

Product, Plaintiff Zamora reviewed the accompanying labels and disclosures and understood them 

as representations and warranties by Defendant that the Product was properly manufactured, free 

from defects, and safe for its intended use. Plaintiff Zamora relied on these representations and 

warranties when deciding to purchase the Product, and these representations and warranties were 

part of the basis of the bargain, in that she would not have purchased the Products from Defendant 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 3 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 4 -

if she had known that they were not, in fact, properly manufactured, free from defects, safe for 

their intended use, not adulterated and misbranded, and legal to sell. The Products Plaintiff Zamora 

purchased were contaminated with benzene, therefore rendering the Products improperly 

manufactured, defective, not safe for their intended use, adulterated and misbranded, and illegal to 

sell. Thus, Plaintiff Zamora was injured in two ways by Defendant. First, Plaintiff Zamora

purchased adulterated and misbranded Products that were illegally sold to her, and therefore 

worthless. Second, Plaintiff Zamora was deceived by Defendant’s representations and omissions 

regarding the presence of benzene in the Products.

10. Plaintiff Mindy Collette is and was at all relevant times a citizen and resident of the 

Bronx, New York. Plaintiff Collette purchased for household use Not Your Mother’s Beach Babe 

Texturizing Dry Shampoo, in or around June 2021, from an Ulta Beauty Salon in the Bronx, New

York. When purchasing the Product, Plaintiff Collette reviewed the accompanying labels and 

disclosures and understood them as representations and warranties by Defendant that the Product 

was properly manufactured, free from defects, and safe for its intended use. Plaintiff Collette relied 

on these representations and warranties when deciding to purchase the Product, and these 

representations and warranties were part of the basis of the bargain, in that she would not have 

purchased the Products from Defendant if she had known that they were not, in fact, properly 

manufactured, free from defects, safe for their intended use, not adulterated and misbranded, and 

legal to sell. The Products Plaintiff Collette purchased were contaminated with benzene, therefore 

rendering the Products improperly manufactured, defective, not safe for their intended use, 

adulterated and misbranded, and illegal to sell. Thus, Plaintiff Collette was injured in two ways by 

Defendant. First, Plaintiff Collette purchased adulterated and misbranded Products that were 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 4 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 5 -

illegally sold to her, and therefore worthless. Second, Plaintiff Collette was deceived by 

Defendant’s representations and omissions regarding the presence of benzene in the Products.

11. Plaintiff Jessica Schoenrock is and was at all relevant times a citizen and resident 

of Queens County, New York. Plaintiff Schoenrock purchased for household use several Not Your 

Mother’s dry shampoo products within the Class Period from a Target store in Flushing, New 

York. When purchasing the Product, Plaintiff Schoenrock reviewed the accompanying labels and 

disclosures and understood them as representations and warranties by Defendant that the Product 

was properly manufactured, free from defects, and safe for its intended use. Plaintiff Schoenrock

relied on these representations and warranties when deciding to purchase the Product, and these 

representations and warranties were part of the basis of the bargain, in that she would not have 

purchased the Products from Defendant if she had known that they were not, in fact, properly 

manufactured, free from defects, safe for their intended use, not adulterated and misbranded, and 

legal to sell. The Products Plaintiff Schoenrock purchased were contaminated with benzene, 

therefore rendering the Products improperly manufactured, defective, not safe for their intended 

use, adulterated and misbranded, and illegal to sell. Thus, Plaintiff Schoenrock was injured in two 

ways by Defendant. First, Plaintiff Schoenrock purchased adulterated and misbranded Products 

that were illegally sold to her, and therefore worthless. Second, Plaintiff Schoenrock was deceived 

by Defendant’s representations and omissions regarding the presence of benzene in the Products.

12. Plaintiff Emily Evans is and was at all relevant times a citizen and resident of 

Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiff Evans purchased for household use Not Your Mother’s Clean Freak 

Refreshing Dry Shampoo – Original within the Class Period from a CVS store in Chicago, Illinois.

When purchasing the Product, Plaintiff Evans reviewed the accompanying labels and disclosures 

and understood them as representations and warranties by Defendant that the Product was properly 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 5 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 6 -

manufactured, free from defects, and safe for its intended use. Plaintiff Evans relied on these 

representations and warranties when deciding to purchase the Product, and these representations 

and warranties were part of the basis of the bargain, in that she would not have purchased the 

Products from Defendant if she had known that they were not, in fact, properly manufactured, free 

from defects, safe for their intended use, not adulterated and misbranded, and legal to sell. The 

Products Plaintiff Evans purchased were contaminated with benzene, therefore rendering the 

Products improperly manufactured, defective, not safe for their intended use, adulterated and 

misbranded, and illegal to sell. Thus, Plaintiff Evans was injured in two ways by Defendant. First, 

Plaintiff Evans purchased adulterated and misbranded Products that were illegally sold to her, and 

therefore worthless. Second, Plaintiff Evans was deceived by Defendant’s representations and 

omissions regarding the presence of benzene in the Products.

13. Plaintiff Stephanie Cohen Shalit is and was at all relevant times a citizen and 

resident of Chicago, Illinois. Plaintiff Cohen Shalit purchased for household use several Not Your 

Mother’s dry shampoo products within the Class Period. For example, in or about June 2022, Ms. 

Cohen Shalit purchased Not Your Mother’s Clean Freak Dry Shampoo at a Walgreens store in 

Chicago, Illinois. When purchasing the Product, Plaintiff Cohen Shalit reviewed the 

accompanying labels and disclosures and understood them as representations and warranties by 

Defendant that the Product was properly manufactured, free from defects, and safe for its intended 

use. Plaintiff Cohen Shalit relied on these representations and warranties when deciding to 

purchase the Product, and these representations and warranties were part of the basis of the bargain, 

in that she would not have purchased the Products from Defendant if she had known that they were 

not, in fact, properly manufactured, free from defects, safe for their intended use, not adulterated 

and misbranded, and legal to sell. The Products Plaintiff Cohen Shalit purchased were 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 6 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 7 -

contaminated with benzene, therefore rendering the Products improperly manufactured, defective, 

not safe for their intended use, adulterated and misbranded, and illegal to sell. Thus, Plaintiff 

Cohen Shalit was injured in two ways by Defendant. First, Plaintiff Cohen Shalit purchased 

adulterated and misbranded Products that were illegally sold to her, and therefore worthless. 

Second, Plaintiff Cohen Shalit was deceived by Defendant’s representations and omissions 

regarding the presence of benzene in the Products.

14. Plaintiff Condalisa LeGrand is and was at all relevant times a citizen and resident 

of Suisun, California. Plaintiff LeGrand has purchased for household use several Not Your 

Mother’s dry shampoo products, including Not Your Mother’s Clean Freak Dry Shampoo –

Original and Plump for Joy Body Building, 7 oz. during the Class Period. Some of the purchases 

were at a Walmart store located at 1400 Hilltop Mall Road, Richmond, California 94806. When

purchasing the Product, Plaintiff LeGrand reviewed the accompanying labels and disclosures and 

understood them as representations and warranties by Defendant that the Product was properly 

manufactured, free from defects, and safe for its intended use. Plaintiff LeGrand relied on these 

representations and warranties when deciding to purchase the Product, and these representations 

and warranties were part of the basis of the bargain, in that she would not have purchased the 

Products from Defendant if she had known that they were not, in fact, properly manufactured, free 

from defects, safe for their intended use, not adulterated and misbranded, and legal to sell. The 

Products Plaintiff LeGrand purchased were contaminated with benzene, therefore rendering the 

Products improperly manufactured, defective, not safe for their intended use, adulterated and 

misbranded, and illegal to sell. Thus, Plaintiff LeGrand was injured in two ways by Defendant. 

First, Plaintiff LeGrand purchased adulterated and misbranded Products that were illegally sold to 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 7 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 8 -

her, and therefore worthless. Second, Plaintiff LeGrand was deceived by Defendant’s 

representations and omissions regarding the presence of benzene in the Products.

15. Plaintiff Jill Kerns is and was at all relevant times a citizen and resident of

Yellowstone County, Montana. Plaintiff purchased for household use several Not Your Mother’s 

dry shampoo products within the Class Period. For example, in or about October or November 

2022, Plaintiff Kerns purchased Not Your Mother’s Clean Freak Dry Shampoo at a Target store

in Billings, Montana. When purchasing the Product, Plaintiff Kerns reviewed the accompanying 

labels and disclosures and understood them as representations and warranties by Defendant that 

the Product was properly manufactured, free from defects, and safe for its intended use. Plaintiff 

Kerns relied on these representations and warranties when deciding to purchase the Product, and 

these representations and warranties were part of the basis of the bargain, in that she would not 

have purchased the Products from Defendant if she had known that they were not, in fact, properly 

manufactured, free from defects, safe for their intended use, not adulterated and misbranded, and 

legal to sell. The Products Plaintiff Kerns purchased were contaminated with benzene, therefore 

rendering the Products improperly manufactured, defective, not safe for their intended use, 

adulterated and misbranded, and illegal to sell. Thus, Plaintiff Kerns was injured in two ways by 

Defendant. First, Plaintiff Kerns purchased adulterated and misbranded Products that were 

illegally sold to her, and therefore worthless. Second, Plaintiff Kerns was deceived by Defendant’s 

representations and omissions regarding the presence of benzene in the Products.

16. Plaintiff Alexis Morgan is and was at all relevant times a citizen and resident of 

Lynchburg, South Carolina. Ms. Morgan purchased for household use several Not Your Mother’s 

dry shampoo products within the Class Period, including Not Your Mother’s Clean Freak 

Refreshing Dry Shampoo, from a store near her residence in Lynchburg, South Carolina. When 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 8 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 9 -

purchasing the Product, Plaintiff Morgan reviewed the accompanying labels and disclosures and 

understood them as representations and warranties by Defendant that the Product was properly 

manufactured, free from defects, and safe for its intended use. Plaintiff Morgan relied on these 

representations and warranties when deciding to purchase the Product, and these representations 

and warranties were part of the basis of the bargain, in that she would not have purchased the 

Products from Defendant if she had known that they were not, in fact, properly manufactured, free 

from defects, safe for their intended use, not adulterated and misbranded, and legal to sell. The 

Products Plaintiff Morgan purchased were contaminated with benzene, therefore rendering the 

Products improperly manufactured, defective, not safe for their intended use, adulterated and 

misbranded, and illegal to sell. Thus, Plaintiff Morgan was injured in two ways by Defendant. 

First, Plaintiff Morgan purchased adulterated and misbranded Products that were illegally sold to 

her, and therefore worthless. Second, Plaintiff Morgan was deceived by Defendant’s 

representations and omissions regarding the presence of benzene in the Products. 

17. Defendant DeMert Brands, LLC is a Florida limited liability company with its 

headquarters and principal place of business located at 15401 N. Nebraska Ave. #102, Lutz, 

Florida. Defendant is a beauty products company that “creates and maintains over 125 products 

within 12 product lines.”

1 Defendant launched the “Not Your Mother’s” brand in 2008, and it “can 

now be found in over 25,000 stores nationwide . . . with 31 items and more continually in the 

works.”2

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

18. Defendant manufactures, markets, advertises, labels, distributes, and sells Not Your 

1

https://www.demertbrands.com/about/ (last visited Feb. 21, 2023). 

2

Id.

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 9 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 10 -

Mother’s dry shampoo, including the Products.

3

19. Dry shampoo products are considered cosmetics that are regulated by the U.S. Food 

and Drug Administration (“FDA”).

4

20. On October 31, 2022, Valisure, an analytical pharmacy and consumer protection 

organization, petitioned the FDA to address dangerous levels of benzene in dry shampoos based 

upon rigorous testing the organization had conducted on a number of dry shampoo products.5

21. Valisure found that certain dry shampoo products, including the Products, contain 

benzene, with values up to 158 parts per million (“ppm”).6 Additional testing was performed by 

Syft Technologies on certain lots of Defendant’s Products which confirmed the presence of 

benzene.7 

22. In its Citizen Petition, Valisure shows data from the analysis of benzene by directly 

sampling contaminated air after spraying dry shampoo products, which suggests the potential for 

short- and long-term inhalation exposure to high levels of benzene.8 The presence of this known 

human carcinogen in dry shampoo products that are regularly used indoors and in large volumes 

makes this finding especially troubling.9

3

Id.; see also https://www.demertbrands.com/not-your-mothers-haircare/ (last visited Feb. 21, 

2023).

4 Valisure Citizen Petition on Benzene in Dry Shampoo Products (“Valisure Petition”) at 1

(available at https://assets-global.websitefiles.com/6215052733f8bb8fea016220/6360f7f49903987d8f4f4309_Valisure%20FDA%20Citiz

en%20Petition%20on%20Benzene%20in%20Dry%20Shampoo%20Products_103122.pdf, last 

accessed Feb. 21, 2023). 

5

See id.

6

Id. at 2, 13-17.

7

Id. at 9, 19.

8

Id.

9

Id.

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 10 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 11 -

23. Benzene is a component of crude oil, gasoline, and cigarette smoke, and is one of 

the elementary petrochemicals. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has 

determined that benzene causes cancer in humans. Likewise, the FDA lists benzene as a “Class 1 

solvent” that “should not be employed in the manufacture of drug substances, excipients, and drug 

products because of [its] unacceptable toxicity.” Benzene is associated with blood cancers such as 

leukemia.10

24. A study from 1939 on benzene stated that “exposure over a long period of time to 

any concentration of benzene greater than zero is not safe,”11 which is a comment reiterated in a 

2010 review of benzene research explicitly stating: “There is probably no safe level of exposure 

to benzene, and all exposures constitute some risk in a linear, if not supralinear, and additive 

fashion.”12

25. The World Health Organization (“WHO”) has stated, “[h]uman exposure to 

benzene has been associated with a range of acute and long-term adverse health effects and 

diseases, including cancer and haematological effects.”13

26. According to the American Cancer Society:

IARC classifies benzene as “carcinogenic to humans,” based on 

sufficient evidence that benzene causes acute myeloid leukemia 

(AML). IARC also notes that benzene exposure has been linked 

10 National Cancer Institute, Cancer-Causing Substances: Benzene, 

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/substances/benzene (last visited 

Feb. 21, 2023).

11 F.T. Hunter, Chronic Exposure to Benzene (Benzol). II. The Clinical Effects, 21 J. INDUSTRIAL 

HYGIENE & TOXICOLOGY 331 (1939), https://www.cabdirect.org/cabdirect/ 

abstract/19402700388.

12 Martyn T. Smith, Advances in Understanding Benzene Health Effects and Susceptibility, 31

ANN. REV. PUB. HEALTH 133 (2010), 

https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.012809.103646.

13 https://www.who.int/teams/environment-climate-change-and-health/chemical-safety-andhealth/health-impacts/chemicals/benzene (last visited Feb. 21, 2023).

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 11 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 12 -

with acute lymphocytic leukemia (ALL), chronic lymphocytic 

leukemia (CLL), multiple myeloma, and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.14

27. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) warns that “[b]enzene 

works by causing cells not to work correctly. For example, it can cause bone marrow to not produce 

enough red blood cells, leading to anemia. Also, it can damage the immune system by changing 

blood levels of antibodies and causing the loss of white blood cells.” The CDC also cautions that 

“[d]irect exposure of the eyes, skin, or lungs to benzene can cause tissue injury and irritation.”15

28. According to the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, humans 

can become exposed to benzene through “inhalation, skin absorption, ingestion, skin and/or eye 

contact.”

16

29. Due to the substantial harm to humans caused by exposure to chemicals such as 

benzene, companies have been founded with the specific goal of preventing defective products 

containing said harmful chemicals from reaching consumers. Valisure is a company with a mission 

“to help ensure the safety, quality and consistency of medications and supplements in the 

market.”17 In order to do this, Valisure operates an independent analytical laboratory registered 

with the FDA and accredited by the International Organization for Standardization.

30. Valisure has tested for specific chemical qualities in numerous types of products, 

such as N-Nitrosodimethylamine (“NDMA”) in metformin, benzene in hand sanitizers, benzene 

in sun care products, and benzene in antiperspirants. Each time, Valisure’s detection of benzene 

14 American Cancer Society, Benzene and Cancer Risk (January 5, 2016), 

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/benzene.html.

15 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Facts About Benzene, 

https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/benzene/basics/facts.asp.

16 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (“NIOSH”), Benzene, 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0049.html.

17 Valisure Petition at 3.

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 12 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 13 -

and other carcinogens has been independently confirmed by industry leaders and led to recalls by 

manufacturers over the subject products. 

31. On October 31, 2022, Valisure tested for benzene in various types of dry shampoos 

by utilizing gas chromatography and detection by mass spectrometry (“GC-MS”) instrumentation 

that allows mass spectral separation. GC-MS “is generally considered one of the most accurate 

analyses available.”18 Indeed, the FDA used the same method to test for impurities, including 

benzene, in hand sanitizers.19

32. After conducting this testing, Valisure “detected high levels of benzene in specific

batches of certain dry shampoo products.”20 

33. Valisure tested the Not Your Mother’s Products manufactured and sold by 

Defendant, which were found to contain as much as 158 ppm of benzene, the highest levels of 

benzene in any of the products Valisure tested: 

Not Your Mother’s Product

First 

Spray 

Benzene 

(ppm)

Second 

Spray 

Benzene 

(ppm)

Third 

Spray 

Benzene 

(ppm)

Fourth 

Spray 

Benzene

(ppm)

Beach Babe Texturizing Dry Shampoo –

Toasted Coconut – 7 0z 158 122 45.0 20.5

Clean Freak Refreshing Dry Shampoo –

Original – 7 oz 143 88.8 107 92.8

Clean Freak Refreshing Dry Shampoo –

Unscented – 7 oz 69.6 34.1 11.5 19.9

Triple Threat Brunette Dry Shampoo –

Hint of Brunette Tinted Powder – 7 oz 27.6 5.04 0.57 0.11

Plump for Joy Body Building Dry 

Shampoo – Orange Mango – 7 oz 132 -- -- --

Blonde Moment Dry Shampoo – Hint of 

Blond Tinted Powder – 7 oz 22.9 -- -- --

18 https://www.element.com/materials-testing-services/chemical-analysis-labs/gcmsanalysislaboratories.

19 https://www.fda.gov/media/141501/download.

20 Valisure Petition at 1.

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 13 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 14 -

Clean Freak Refreshing Dry Shampoo –

Original – 1.6 oz 4.46 -- -- --

34. The FDA states that if benzene is “unavoidable in order to produce a drug product 

with a significant therapeutic advance,” then the drug product may contain up to 2 ppm of 

benzene.21 However, Defendant’s Products contain levels of benzene significantly above this 

amount. Regardless, the Products are not designed to contain benzene, as dry shampoo products 

have long been sold without benzene contamination. Moreover, according to Valisure, “the dry 

shampoos tested are not drugs and contain no active pharmaceutical ingredient for therapeutic 

purposes; therefore, any significant detection of benzene could be deemed unacceptable.”22

35. In addition, Valisure tested multiple other brands of dry shampoo products, several 

of which were found to be “below the lower limit of quantitation,”23 demonstrating that the 

Products could have been manufactured without benzene. Accordingly, any level of benzene in 

Defendant’s Products is unacceptable and renders the Products adulterated, misbranded, unsafe, 

and worthless. 

36. Defendant did not disclose the actual or potential presence of benzene in its dry 

shampoo products on the Products’ labeling, advertising, marketing, or sale.

37. As mentioned above, the subject Products are considered cosmetics, which the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCS”) defines by their intended use as “articles 

intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on, introduced into, or otherwise applied to 

the human body . . . for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the 

appearance.” 21 U.S.C. § 321(i). “Cosmetic companies have a legal responsibility for the safety 

21 Id. at 2 (emphasis added).

22 Id. (emphasis added). 

23 Id. at 17.

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 14 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 15 -

of their products and ingredients.”24

38. The FDCA prohibits the distribution of cosmetics that are adulterated or 

misbranded. A cosmetic is considered adulterated “if it bears or contains any poisonous or 

deleterious substance which may render it injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed 

in the labeling thereof, or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual.” 21 U.S.C. § 

361(a).

39. A cosmetic is also adulterated “[i]f it has been prepared, packed, or held under 

insanitary conditions whereby it may have become contaminated with filth, or whereby it may 

have been rendered injurious to health.” 21 U.S.C. § 361(c).

40. A cosmetic is misbranded if “its labeling is false or misleading in any particular,” 

and if its packaging does not bear “a label containing ... an accurate statement of the quantity of 

the contents in terms of weight, measure, or numerical count.” 21 U.S.C. §§ 362(a)-(b)(2). Further, 

as cosmetics regulated by the FDA, the Products must “bear a warning statement whenever 

necessary or appropriate to prevent a health hazard that may be associated with the product.” 21 

C.F.R. § 740.1(a).

41. Any cosmetic product that is adulterated or misbranded is illegal to sell. 21 U.S.C. 

§ 331(a). Adulterated and misbranded products thus have no economic value and are legally 

worthless.

42. Moreover, the manufacture of any misbranded or adulterated cosmetic is prohibited 

under federal law,25 as well as specifically prohibited under the laws of many states, including 

24 Cosmetic Safety Q&A: Personal Care Products (https://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/resourcesconsumers-cosmetics/cosmetics-safety-qa-personal-care-products#:~:text=Cosmetic%20 

companies%20have%20a%20legal,product%20affects%20how%20you%20look) (last accessed 

March 20, 2023).

25 21 U.S.C § 331(g).

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 15 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 16 -

Florida and Illinois.

26

43. The presence of benzene renders the Products adulterated and misbranded. As

alleged above, benzene is a poisonous and deleterious substance linked to cancer and dangerous 

at any level. The Products were also manufactured in such an unsanitary way that they became 

contaminated with benzene. Thus, the Products are adulterated.

44. The Products’ labeling also failed to disclose the existence of benzene in the 

Products, and the ingredients section of the Products’ labeling does not list “benzene” as an 

ingredient. Further, the Products’ labeling does not disclose the presence of benzene, even though 

a warning statement concerning benzene is necessary or appropriate to prevent a health hazard. 21 

C.F.R. § 740.1(a). Therefore, the Products are also “misbranded.”

45. As a manufacturer, distributor, and seller of cosmetics products, Defendant has a 

duty to ensure its Products do not contain excessive (or any) levels of benzene, including through 

regular testing. But based on Valisure’s testing results set forth above, Defendant made no 

reasonable effort to test its Products for benzene or other impurities. Nor did it disclose to Plaintiffs 

or any other consumers in any product advertising, labeling, packaging, or marketing that its dry 

shampoo Products contained benzene, in some instances many multiples beyond the interim 

emergency limit set by the FDA. To the contrary, Defendant represented and warranted, expressly 

and impliedly, that the Products were safe and effective for their intended use, were of 

26 See Fla. Stat. § 499.005(1) (“It is unlawful for a person to perform or cause the performance of 

any of the following acts in this state: (1) The manufacture, repackaging, sale, delivery, or holding 

or offering for sale of any drug, device, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded or has 

otherwise been rendered unfit for human or animal use.”); see also 410 ILCS 620/14 (expressly 

adopting the federal labeling requirements under the Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“IL 

FDCA”).

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 16 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 17 -

merchantable quality, complied with federal and state law, and did not contain carcinogens, 

reproductive toxins, or other impurities such as benzene. 

46. If Defendant had fulfilled its quality assurance obligations, Defendant would have 

identified the presence of the benzene contaminant almost immediately. 

47. Further, had Defendant adequately tested its Products for benzene and other 

carcinogens, reproductive toxins, and impurities, it would have discovered the Products contained 

benzene at levels above the FDA’s limit (to the extent even applicable), making those products 

ineligible for distribution, marketing, and sale. 

48. Accordingly, Defendant knowingly, or at least negligently, introduced 

contaminated, adulterated, and/or misbranded Products containing dangerous amounts of benzene 

into the U.S. market. 

49. Defendant also knew or should have known about the carcinogenic potential of 

benzene because benzene is classified as a Group 1 compound by the WHO and the International 

Agency for Research on Cancer, meaning that it is “carcinogenic to humans.” In addition, in the 

last year, numerous manufacturers have issued recalls of their products due to the presence of 

benzene. Defendant should therefore have been on high alert to test its Products for the presence 

of benzene.

50. When Plaintiffs purchased Defendant’s Products, Plaintiffs did not know, and had 

no reason to know, that Defendant’s Products were adulterated and misbranded and thus unlawful 

to sell as set forth herein. Not only would Plaintiffs not have purchased Defendant’s Products at 

all had they known the Products contained or risked containing benzene, they would not have been 

capable of purchasing them if Defendant had done as the law required and tested the Products for 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 17 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 18 -

benzene and other carcinogens, reproductive toxins, and impurities, because the Products would 

have been deemed adulterated and misbranded, and therefore illegal to sell. 

51. Moreover, no reasonable consumer would have paid any amount for products 

containing benzene, a known carcinogen and reproductive toxin, much less above the limits set by 

the FDA (even assuming those allowances apply to Defendant’s Products). 

52. Thus, if Plaintiffs and Class members had been informed that Defendant’s Products 

contained or may contain benzene, they would not have purchased or used the Products at all, or 

would have paid significantly less for them, making such omitted facts material to them. 

53. Plaintiffs and the Classes were injured by the full purchase price of the Products 

because they are worthless, as they are adulterated and misbranded due to the presence of harmful 

levels of benzene. Such illegally sold products are worthless and have no value.

54. Further, Plaintiffs and Class Members bargained for a dry shampoo product free of 

contaminants and dangerous substances and were deprived of the basis of their bargain when 

Defendant manufactured and sold them products containing or at risk of containing the dangerous 

substance benzene. Had Defendant not misrepresented that the Products did not contain or were 

not at risk of containing benzene, and/or had Defendant not failed to disclose that the Products 

contained or were at risk of containing benzene, Plaintiffs and Class Members would not have 

purchased the Products or would not have paid as much for the Products based on these 

misrepresentations or omissions. 

55. Defendant wrongfully advertised and sold the Products without any labeling to 

indicate to consumers that these products contain benzene. The following images are illustrative 

of the labels contained on the Products purchased by Plaintiffs and the Class members, and Plaintiff 

notes that the labeling on the back of the bottle contains “Warnings” none of which are for the 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 18 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 19 -

presence of a carcinogenic ingredient:

27

27 Available at https://www.walmart.com/ip/Not-Your-Mother-s-Clean-Freak-Refreshing-DryShampoo-Spray-Original-7-oz/16777427 (last visited Feb. 21, 2023). 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 19 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 20 -

28

28 Available at https://www.walmart.com/ip/Not-Your-Mother-s-Clean-Freak-Refreshing-DryShampoo-Spray-Unscented-7-oz/52619225 (last visited Feb. 21, 2023). 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 20 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 21 -

29

29 Available at https://www.walmart.com/ip/Not-Your-Mother-s-Beach-Babe-Refreshing-DryShampoo-Spray-7-oz/130088018 (last visited Feb. 21, 2023). 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 21 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 22 -

30

30 Available at https://www.walmart.com/ip/Not-Your-Mother-s-Triple-Threat-Brunette-ColorProtection-Oil-Control-Dry-Shampoo-7-oz/816981822 (last visited Feb. 21, 2023). 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 22 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 23 -

31

31 Available at https://www.walmart.com/ip/Not-Your-Mother-s-Plump-for-Joy-Refreshing-DryShampoo-Spray-7-oz/136604427 (last visited Feb. 21, 2023). 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 23 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 24 -

32

56. Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to damages for the monies paid to 

purchase the Products, statutory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and injunctive 

relief.

57. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the Class for equitable relief 

and to recover damages and restitution for: (i) violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade 

Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201 et seq.; (ii) violation of New York General Business Law § 

349 – Deceptive Acts or Practices; (iii) violation of New York General Business Law § 350 – False 

Advertising; (iv) violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 

32 Available at https://www.walmart.com/ip/Not-Your-Mother-s-Blonde-Moment-ColorProtection-Dry-Shampoo-7-oz/984267162 (last visited Feb. 21, 2023). 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 24 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 25 -

ILCS 505/1 et seq.; (v) violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code

§§ 17200 et seq.; (vi) violation of the California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code

§§ 17500 et seq.; (vii) violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code

§§ 1750 et seq.; (viii) violation of the Montana Unfair Trade Practices Act, Mont. Code §§ 30-14-

101 et seq.; (ix) unjust enrichment; and (x) violation of state consumer fraud acts.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

58. Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

as members of the following classes against Defendant for violations of Florida, New York, 

Illinois, California, Montana, and South Carolina state laws and/or similar laws in other U.S. states

and territories:

Nationwide Class: All persons or entities in the United States (including its 

Territories and the District of Columbia) who purchased the Products for personal 

or household use within any applicable limitations period.

Florida Sub-Class: All persons or entities who purchased the Products for personal 

or household use in Florida within any applicable limitations period.

New York Sub-Class: All persons or entities who purchased the Products for 

personal or household use in New York within any applicable limitations period.

Illinois Sub-Class: All persons or entities who purchased the Products for personal 

or household use in Illinois within any applicable limitations period.

California Sub-Class: All persons or entities who purchased the Products for 

personal or household use in California within any applicable limitations period.

Montana Sub-Class: All persons or entities who purchased the Products for 

personal or household use in Montana within any applicable limitations period.

South Carolina Sub-Class: All persons or entities who purchased the Products for 

personal or household use in South Carolina within any applicable limitations 

period.

Consumer Fraud Multi-State Subclass: All persons or entities who purchased 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 25 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 26 -

the Products for personal or household use in California, Florida, Illinois, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, or 

Washington33 within any applicable limitations period.

(collectively, “the Classes”).

59. Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation and 

discovery, the foregoing definition of the Classes may be expanded or narrowed by amendment or 

amended complaint. Specifically excluded from the proposed Classes are Defendant, its officers, 

directors, agents, trustees, parents, children, corporations, trusts, representatives, employees, 

principals, servants, partners, joint venturers, or entities controlled by Defendant, and their heirs, 

successors, assigns, or other persons or entities related to or affiliated with Defendant and/or their 

officers and/or directors, or any of them; the Judge assigned to this action, and any member of the

Judge’s immediate family.

60. Certification of Plaintiffs’ claims for Class-wide treatment is appropriate because 

Plaintiffs can prove the elements of their claims on a Class-wide basis using the same evidence as 

would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same claim.

61. Numerosity. Rule 23(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: The members 

of the Classes are so numerous and geographically dispersed that individual joinder of all Class 

members is impracticable. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that the 

proposed Classes contain tens or hundreds of thousands of members. The precise number of Class 

members is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time.

33 While discovery may alter the following, the states in the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class are 

limited to those states with similar consumer fraud laws under the facts of this case: California 

(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.); Florida (Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq.); Illinois (815 Ill. 

Comp. Stat. 505/1, et seq.); Massachusetts (Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93A, et seq.); Michigan (Mich. 

Comp. Laws § 445.901, et seq.); Minnesota (Minn. Stat. § 325F.67, et seq.); Missouri (Mo. Rev. 

Stat. § 407.010, et seq.); New Jersey (N.J. Stat. § 56:8-1, et seq.); New York (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law 

§§ 349 and 350); and Washington (Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010, et seq.). 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 26 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 27 -

62. Commonality and Predominance. Rules 23(a)(2) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure: This action involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate 

over any questions affecting individual Class members, including, but not limited to:

a. Whether Defendant misrepresented and/or failed to disclose material facts 

concerning the Products;

b. Whether Defendant’s conduct was unfair and/or deceptive; 

c. Whether Defendant has been unjustly enriched as a result of the 

unlawful conduct alleged in this Complaint such that it would be 

inequitable for Defendant to retain the benefits conferred upon 

Defendant by Plaintiffs and the Classes;

d. Whether Plaintiffs and the Classes have sustained damages with 

respect to the claims asserted, and if so, the proper measure of their 

damages; and 

e. Whether an injunction is necessary to prevent Defendant from 

continuing to market and sell adulterated and misbranded Products 

that contain benzene, a known human carcinogen. 

63. Typicality. Rule 23(a)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Plaintiffs’

claims are typical of the other Class members’ claims because, among other things, all Class 

members were comparably injured through Defendant’s uniform misconduct described above and 

were subject to Defendant’s deceptive claims that accompanied each and every Product in 

Defendant’s collection. Plaintiffs are advancing the same claims and legal theories on behalf of 

themselves and all members of the Classes.

64. Adequacy. Rule 23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Plaintiffs are 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 27 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 28 -

adequate Class representatives because their interests do not conflict with the interests of the other 

members of the Classes they seek to represent; Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and 

experienced in complex class action litigation; and Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this action 

vigorously. Plaintiffs and their counsel will fairly and adequately protect the Classes’ interests.

65. Declaratory Relief. Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: 

Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiffs and Class 

members, thereby making appropriate declaratory relief with respect to the Classes as a whole.

66. Plaintiffs seek preliminary and permanent injunctive and equitable relief on behalf 

of the entire Classes, on grounds generally applicable to the entire Classes, to enjoin and prevent 

Defendant from engaging in the acts described above, such as continuing to market and sell 

misbranded Products that are adulterated with benzene, and requiring Defendant to provide a full 

refund of the purchase price of the Products to Plaintiffs and Class members.

67. Unless a class is certified, Defendant will retain monies received due to their 

conduct taken from Plaintiffs and the Class members. Unless a Class-wide injunction is issued, 

Defendant will continue to commit the violations alleged, and the members of the Class and the 

general public will continue to be misled.

68. Superiority. Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A class action 

is superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, 

and no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action. 

The damages or other financial detriment suffered by Plaintiffs and Class members are relatively 

small compared to the burden and expense that would be required to individually litigate their 

claims against Defendant, so it would be impracticable for Class members to individually seek 

redress for Defendant’s wrongful conduct. Even if Class members could afford individual 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 28 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 29 -

litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation creates a potential for inconsistent 

or contradictory judgments, and increases the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. 

By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the 

benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single 

court.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I

Violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act

(FLA. STAT. §§ 501.201 et seq.)

On Behalf of Plaintiff Zamora and the Florida Sub-Class

69. Plaintiff Zamora realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 68

as though fully set forth herein.

70. Plaintiff Zamora brings this claim individually and on behalf of the Florida SubClass pursuant to section 501.211, Florida Statutes.

71. The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) makes 

unlawful “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1).

72. Plaintiff Zamora and the Florida Sub-Class members are “consumers” within the 

meaning of section 501.203(7), Florida Statutes.

73. Defendant is engaged in the practice of manufacturing, marketing, distributing, 

selling and otherwise placing into the stream of commerce the Products, which constitutes trade 

and commerce as defined by section 501.203(8), Florida Statutes, and is therefore subject to 

FDUPTA.

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 29 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 30 -

74. As alleged herein, Plaintiff Zamora has suffered injury in fact and lost money as a 

result of Defendant’s conduct because she purchased Products from Defendant in reliance on 

Defendant’s representation that the ingredients in its Products were safe and effective and were 

not adulterated with benzene, a known human carcinogen.

75. As alleged herein, Defendant’s actions are deceptive and in clear violation of 

FDUTPA, entitling Plaintiff Zamora and the Class to damages and relief under sections 501.201-

213, Florida Statutes.

76. Defendant has engaged, and continues to engage, in conduct that is likely to deceive

members of the public. This conduct includes representing in its labels that its Products contain 

only the ingredients listed in the label, which is untrue, and failing to make any mention that the 

Products are adulterated with benzene, a known human carcinogen.

77. By committing the acts alleged above, Defendant has engaged in unconscionable, 

deceptive, or unfair acts or practices, which constitute unfair competition within the meaning of 

FDUTPA. Specifically, Defendant engaged in unfair practices by selling products contaminated 

with benzene, which are adulterated and illegal to sell. 

78. Defendant’s conduct is substantially injurious to consumers. Consumers are 

purchasing and using Defendant’s Products without knowledge that the Products are contaminated 

with a human carcinogen. This conduct has caused, and continues to cause, substantial injury to 

consumers because consumers would not have paid for Products contaminated with benzene but 

for Defendant’s false labeling, advertising, and promotion. Thus, Plaintiff Zamora and the Florida 

Sub-Class have been “aggrieved” (i.e., lost money) as required for FDUTPA standing, and such 

an injury is not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 30 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 31 -

79. Indeed, no benefit to consumers or competition results from Defendant’s conduct. 

Since consumers reasonably rely on Defendant’s labeling of the ingredients and other information 

disclosing what is contained in the Products and injury resulting from ordinary use, consumers 

could not have reasonably avoided such injury.

80. Further, Defendant’s conduct is ongoing and continuing, such that prospective 

injunctive relief is necessary. Plaintiff Zamora is a long-time user of Defendant’s Products, and 

she desires to purchase Defendant’s Products in the future if she can be assured that the Products 

are unadulterated and meet the advertising claims. Absent injunctive relief, Defendant may 

continue to advertise, promote, and sell adulterated Products that deceive the public regarding their 

ingredients, contents and/or safety. Plaintiff Zamora is thus likely to be again wronged in a similar 

way. For example, if Plaintiff Zamora or the Florida Sub-Class members encounter Defendant’s 

Products in the future and there is a risk those products still contain benzene, Plaintiff Zamora or 

Florida Sub-Class members may mistakenly rely on the Product’s label to believe that Defendant’s 

eliminated benzene when they did not.

81. Plaintiff Zamora and Florida Sub-Class members are entitled to recover their 

reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to section 501.2105, Florida Statutes.

82. Moreover, Plaintiff Zamora and the Florida Sub-Class seek an order enjoining 

Defendant from continuing to conduct business through fraudulent or unlawful acts and practices 

and to commence a corrective advertising campaign. Defendant’s conduct is ongoing and 

continuing, such that prospective injunctive relief is necessary.

83. On behalf of Plaintiff Zamora and the Florida Sub-Class, Plaintiff Zamora also 

seeks an order entitling her and the Class to recover all monies spent on Defendant’s Products, 

which were acquired through acts of fraudulent, unfair, or unlawful competition.

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 31 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 32 -

84. In addition, the measure of restitution should be a full refund of the purchase price, 

since the Products are worthless. But for Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiff

and Class members would have paid nothing for Products containing benzene. Indeed, there is no 

discernible “market” for an over-the-counter dry shampoo product that is adulterated with a known 

human carcinogen. As recognized by the WHO, “[b]enzene is carcinogenic to humans, and no safe 

level of benzene can be recommended.”34 As a result, Defendant’s Products are rendered valueless.

COUNT II

Violation of New York General Business Law § 349 – Deceptive Acts or Practices

On Behalf of Plaintiffs Collette and Schoenrock and the New York Sub-Class

85. Plaintiffs Collette and Schoenrock reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 

1 through 68 as though fully set forth herein.

86. Plaintiffs Collette and Schoenrock bring this claim individually and on behalf of 

the New York Sub-Class pursuant to New York General Business Law (“GBL”) § 349.

87. GBL § 349 prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, 

trade, or commerce. Id. § 349(a).

88. In selling goods throughout the state of New York, Defendant conducts business 

and trade within the meaning of GBL § 349.

89. Plaintiffs Collette and Schoenrock and members of the New York Sub-Class are 

consumers who purchased products from Defendant for their personal use.

90. Defendant is engaged in deceptive, unfair, and misleading acts and practices, which 

include, without limitation, misrepresenting that the Products (i) would not contain dangerously 

high levels of benzene, and (ii) are generally recognized as safe for human use. Defendant also 

34 See https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-CED-PHE-EPE-19.4.2 (last visited Feb. 21, 

2023).

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 32 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 33 -

materially omitted critical facts regarding the true nature of the Products, specifically that the 

Products contained dangerous levels of benzene, were adulterated, and were unsafe for use as dry 

shampoo. Had Plaintiffs Collette and Schoenrock and members of the New York Sub-Class been 

aware that the Products contained benzene, they would not have purchased them.

91. The deceptive acts and practices were directed at consumers.

92. The deceptive acts and practices are misleading in a material way because they 

fundamentally misrepresent the characteristics and quality of the Products to induce consumers to 

purchase them. No reasonable consumer would knowingly purchase a dry shampoo product that 

may contain high levels of a known carcinogen.

93. Defendant’s conduct is substantially injurious to consumers. Consumers are 

purchasing and using Defendant’s Products without knowledge that the Products are contaminated 

with a human carcinogen. This conduct has caused, and continues to cause, substantial injury to 

consumers because consumers would not have paid for the Products contaminated with benzene 

but for Defendant’s false labeling, advertising, and promotion. Thus, Plaintiffs Collette and 

Schoenrock and the New York Sub-Class have been “aggrieved” (i.e., lost money) as required for 

standing, and such an injury is not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or 

competition.

94. Because consumers reasonably rely on Defendant’s labeling of the ingredients and 

other information disclosing what is contained in the Products and injury resulted from ordinary 

use of the Products, consumers could not have reasonably avoided such injury.

95. Defendant’s actions are the direct, foreseeable, and proximate cause of the damages 

that Plaintiffs Collette and Schoenrock and members of the New York Sub-Class have sustained 

from having paid for and used Defendant’s Products.

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 33 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 34 -

96. As a result of Defendant’s violations, Plaintiffs Collette and Schoenrock and 

members of the New York Sub-Class have suffered damages because: (a) they paid a premium 

price in the amount of the full purchase price of the Products based on Defendant’s deceptive 

conduct, and (b) the Products do not have the characteristics, uses, benefits, or qualities promised.

97. Plaintiffs Collette and Schoenrock and New York Sub-Class members are entitled

to recover their actual damages or fifty dollars, whichever is greater, as well as three times actual 

damages where Defendant’s violations were willful and knowing. GBL § 349(h).

98. In addition, Plaintiffs Collette and Schoenrock and New York Sub-Class members 

are entitled to recover their reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to GBL § 349(h).

COUNT III

Violation of New York General Business Law § 350 – False Advertising

On Behalf of Plaintiffs Collette and Schoenrock and the New York Sub-Class

99. Plaintiffs Collette and Schoenrock reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 

1 through 68 as though fully set forth herein.

100. Plaintiffs Collette and Schoenrock bring this claim individually and on behalf of 

the New York Sub-Class pursuant to GBL § 350.

101. GBL § 350 prohibits false advertising in the conduct of any business, trade, or 

commerce. Id. § 350.

102. False advertising is defined as “advertising, including labeling, of a commodity . . 

. if such advertising is misleading in a material respect.” Id. § 350-a(1).

103. Based on the foregoing, Defendant has engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that 

is deceptive or misleading in a material way which constitutes false advertising in violation of 

GBL § 350.

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 34 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 35 -

104. Defendant’s false, misleading, and deceptive statements and representations of fact 

were and are directed toward consumers.

105. Defendant’s false, misleading, and deceptive statements and representations of fact 

were and are likely to mislead a reasonable consumer acting reasonably under the circumstances.

106. Defendant’s false, misleading, and deceptive statements and representations of fact 

have resulted in consumer injury or harm to the public interest.

107. Defendant also materially omitted key facts regarding the true nature of the 

Products, specifically that the Products contained dangerous levels of benzene, were adulterated, 

and were unsafe for use as dry shampoo. Had Plaintiffs Collette and Schoenrock and members of 

the New York Sub-Class been aware that the Products contained benzene, they would not have 

purchased them.

108. Because consumers reasonably rely on Defendant’s labeling of the ingredients and 

other information disclosing what is contained in the Products and injury resulted from ordinary 

use of the Products, consumers could not have reasonably avoided such injury.

109. Defendant’s actions are the direct, foreseeable, and proximate cause of the damages 

that Plaintiffs Collette and Schoenrock and members of the New York Sub-Class have sustained 

from having paid for and used Defendant’s Products.

110. As a result of Defendant’s violations, Plaintiffs Collette and Schoenrock and 

members of the New York Sub-Class have suffered damages because (a) they paid a premium 

price in the amount of the full purchase price of the Products based on Defendant’s deceptive 

conduct, and (b) the Products do not have the characteristics, uses, benefits, or qualities promised.

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 35 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 36 -

111. Plaintiffs Collette and Schoenrock and New York Sub-Class members are entitled 

to recover their actual damages or five hundred dollars, whichever is greater, as well as three times 

actual damages where Defendant’s violations were willful and knowing. GBL § 350-e(3).

112. In addition, Plaintiffs Collette and Schoenrock and New York Sub-Class members 

are entitled to recover their reasonable attorney’s fees pursuant to GBL § 350-e(3).

COUNT IV

Violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act

(815 ILCS §§ 501/1 et seq.)

On Behalf of Plaintiffs Evans and Cohen Shalit and the Illinois Sub-Class

113. Plaintiffs Evans and Cohen Shalit reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 

1 through 68 as though fully set forth herein.

114. Plaintiffs Evans and Cohen Shalit bring this claim individually and on behalf of the 

Illinois Sub-Class pursuant to the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act 

(“ICFA”), 815 ILCS §§ 505/1 et seq.

115. Plaintiffs Evans and Cohen Shalit and the other Illinois Sub-Class members, as 

natural persons, are persons within the meaning of the ICFA. 815 ILCS § 505/1(c).

116. Defendant, as a limited liability company, is a person within the meaning of the 

ICFA. Id.

117. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, which was engaged in the “advertising,

offering for sale or distribution” of tangible property, was engaged in trade or commerce as defined 

in the ICFA. Id. § 505/1(f).

118. The IFCA does not apply to “[a]ctions or transactions specifically authorized by 

laws administered by any regulatory body or officer of [Illinois] or the United States.” Id. 

§ 505/10b(1).

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 36 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 37 -

119. The Federal FDCA prohibits the introduction into interstate commerce of “any

food, drug, or cosmetic that is adulterated or misbranded.” 21 U.S.C. § 331(a).

120. As the Products are adulterated and misbranded, the FDCA specifically prohibits 

their introduction into interstate commerce, and thus, actions under the ICFA related to the 

Products being adulterated and misbranded are not barred by 815 ILCS § 505/10b(1).

121. The IFCA prohibits engaging in any “unfair or deceptive acts or practices . . . in the 

conduct of any trade or commerce.” 815 ILCS § 505/2.

122. The ICFA prohibits any deceptive, unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or 

practices including using deception, fraud, false pretenses, false promises, false advertising, 

misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact, or the use or 

employment of any practice described in Section 2 of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. 

Id.

123. Plaintiffs Evans and Cohen Shalit and the other Illinois Sub-Class members 

reasonably relied upon Defendant’s representations that the Products were safe for personal use 

and, due to Defendant’s affirmative misrepresentations of the ingredients in the Products, which 

excluded benzene, and omission of the presence of benzene in the Products, Plaintiffs read and 

relied on Defendant’s labeling to conclude that the Products were not contaminated with any 

dangerous substance, including benzene.

124. Defendant has engaged, and continues to engage, in conduct that is likely to deceive 

members of the public. This conduct includes representing in its labels that its Products contain 

only the ingredients listed in the label, which is untrue, and failing to make any mention that the 

Products are adulterated with benzene, a known human carcinogen.

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 37 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 38 -

125. By committing the acts alleged above—specifically, the sale of adulterated and 

illegally sold products—Defendant engaged in unfair conduct in violation of the ICFA.

126. Defendant engaged in deceptive conduct, including but not limited to 

misrepresenting that the Products did not contain or did not risk containing benzene, and failing to 

disclose that the Products contained or risked containing benzene.

127. Defendant violated the ICFA by representing that the Products have characteristics 

or benefits that they do not have. 815 ILCS §§ 505/2 & 510/2(7).

128. Defendant advertised the Products with the intent not to sell them as advertised, in 

violation of 815 ILCS § 505/2 and 815 ILCS § 510/2(9).

129. Defendant engaged in fraudulent and/or deceptive conduct, which creates a 

likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding in violation of 815 ILCS § 505/2 and 815 ILCS 

§ 510/2(3).

130. Defendant’s conduct is substantially injurious to consumers. Consumers are 

purchasing and using Defendant’s Products without knowledge that the Products are contaminated 

with a human carcinogen. This conduct has caused, and continues to cause, substantial injury to 

consumers because consumers would not have paid for the Products contaminated with benzene 

but for Defendant’s false labeling, advertising, and promotion. Thus, Plaintiffs Evans and Cohen 

Shalit and the Illinois Sub-Class have been “aggrieved” (i.e., lost money) as required for standing, 

and such an injury is not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.

131. Because consumers reasonably rely on Defendant’s labeling of the ingredients and 

other information disclosing what is contained in the Products and injury resulted from ordinary 

use of the Products, consumers could not have reasonably avoided such injury.

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 38 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 39 -

132. Defendant’s actions are the direct, foreseeable, and proximate cause of the damages 

that Plaintiffs Evans and Cohen Shalit and members of the Illinois Sub-Class have sustained from 

having paid for and used Defendant’s Products.

133. As alleged herein, Plaintiffs Evans and Cohen Shalit have suffered injury-in-fact 

and lost money as a result of Defendant’s conduct because they purchased Products from 

Defendant in reliance on Defendant’s representation that the ingredients in its Products were safe 

and effective and were not adulterated with benzene, a known human carcinogen.

134. As a result of Defendant’s violations, Plaintiffs Evans and Cohen Shalit and 

members of the Illinois Sub-Class have suffered damages because: (a) they paid a premium price 

in the amount of the full purchase price of the Products based on Defendant’s deceptive conduct, 

and (b) the Products do not have the characteristics, uses, benefits, or qualities promised.

135. Plaintiffs Evans and Cohen Shalit and Illinois Sub-Class members are entitled to 

recover their actual damages. 815 ILCS § 505/10a.

136. Further, Plaintiffs Evans and Cohen Shalit and the Illinois Sub-Class seek an order 

enjoining Defendant from continuing to conduct business through fraudulent or unlawful acts and 

practices and to commence a corrective advertising campaign. Defendant’s conduct is ongoing and 

continuing, such that prospective injunctive relief is necessary. Id. § 505/10a(c).

137. On behalf of Plaintiffs Evans and Cohen Shalit and the Illinois Sub-Class, Plaintiffs 

Evans and Cohen Shalit also seek an order entitling them and the Class to recover all monies spent 

on the Defendant’s Products, which were acquired through acts of fraudulent, unfair, or unlawful 

competition.

138. The measure of restitution should be a full refund of the purchase price insofar as 

the Products and their associated labels are worthless. But for Defendant’s misrepresentations and 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 39 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 40 -

omissions, Plaintiffs Evans, Cohen Shalit, and Class members would have paid nothing for 

Products containing benzene. Indeed, there is no discernible “market” for an over-the-counter dry 

shampoo product that is adulterated with a known human carcinogen. As a result, Defendant’s 

Products are rendered valueless.

139. In addition, Plaintiffs Evans and Cohen Shalit and Illinois Sub-Class members are 

entitled to recover their reasonable attorney’s fees. Id. § 505/10a(c).

COUNT V

Violation of the California Unfair Competition Law

(CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200 et seq.)

On Behalf of Plaintiff LeGrand and the California Sub-Class

140. Plaintiff LeGrand realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 68

as though fully set forth herein.

141. Plaintiff LeGrand brings this claim individually and on behalf of the California 

Sub-Class pursuant to the California Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 

§§ 17200 et seq.

142. The UCL prohibits any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice.” 

Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. 

143. The acts, omissions, misrepresentations, practices, and non-disclosures of 

Defendant as alleged herein constitute business acts and practices. 

144. The acts alleged herein are “unlawful” under the UCL in that they violate at least 

the following laws: 

a. The False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500 et seq.; 

b. The Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750 et seq.; 

c. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 301 et seq.; and

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 40 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 41 -

d. The California Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law, Cal. Health &

Safety Code §§ 110100 et seq.

145. Defendant’s conduct with respect to the labeling, advertising, and sale of the 

Products was “unfair” because Defendant’s conduct was immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, or 

substantially injurious to consumers and the utility of their conduct, if any, does not outweigh the 

gravity of the harm to their victims.

146. Defendant’s conduct with respect to the labeling, advertising, and sale of the 

Products was and is also unfair because it violates public policy as declared by specific 

constitutional, statutory or regulatory provisions, including but not limited to the applicable 

sections of: the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law, the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the California Sherman Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Law.

147. Further, the consumer injury was substantial, not outweighed by benefits to

consumers or competition, and not one consumer themselves could reasonably have avoided.

148. A statement or practice is “fraudulent” under the UCL if it is likely to mislead or

deceive the public, applying an objective reasonable consumer test.

149. As set forth herein, Defendant’s claims relating the representations and omissions 

stated on the Products’ labeling and marketing statements mislead reasonable consumers regarding 

the presence of benzene in the Products. 

150. Defendant profited from its sale of the falsely, deceptively, and unlawfully 

advertised the Products to unsuspecting consumers. 

151. Plaintiff LeGrand and California Sub-Class Members are likely to continue to be 

damaged by Defendant’s deceptive trade practices, because Defendant continues to disseminate 

misleading information on the Products’ packaging. Additionally, Plaintiff LeGrand has purchased 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 41 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 42 -

the Products, and would be willing to purchase these Products again, if the risk of benzene 

exposure was eliminated. Thus, injunctive relief enjoining Defendant’s deceptive practices is 

proper. 

152. Defendant’s conduct caused and continues to cause substantial injury to Plaintiff 

LeGrand and the other California Sub-Class Members. Plaintiff LeGrand has suffered injury in 

fact as a result of Defendant’s unlawful conduct, including economic injury.

153. In accordance with Bus. & Prof. Code § 17203, Plaintiff LeGrand seeks an order 

enjoining Defendant from continuing to conduct business through unlawful, unfair, and/or 

fraudulent acts and practices, and to commence a corrective advertising campaign. 

154. Plaintiff LeGrand and the Class also seek an order for and restitution of all monies 

from the sale of the Products, which were unjustly acquired through acts of unlawful competition. 

Plaintiff LeGrand seeks such equitable relief, in the alternatively, should their legal remedies prove 

unavailable.

COUNT VI

Violation of the California False Advertising Law

(CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17500 et seq.)

On Behalf of Plaintiff LeGrand and the California Sub-Class

155. Plaintiff LeGrand realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 68

as though fully set forth herein.

156. Plaintiff LeGrand brings this claim individually and on behalf of the California 

Sub-Class pursuant to the California False Advertising Law (“FAL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 

§§ 17500 et seq.

157. The FAL provides that “[i]t is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or 

association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 42 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 43 -

property or to perform services” to disseminate any statement “which is untrue or misleading, and 

which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or 

misleading. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500. It is also unlawful under the FAL to disseminate 

statements concerning property or services that are “untrue or misleading, and which [are] known, 

or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading.” Id.

158. As alleged herein, the advertisements, labeling, policies, acts, and practices of 

Defendant relating to the Products were likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably, as to the 

content of the Products and the potential risk of exposure to benzene.

159. Plaintiff LeGrand suffered injury-in-fact as a result of Defendant’s actions as set 

forth herein because she purchased the Products in reliance on Defendant’s false and misleading 

marketing claims stating or suggesting that the Products are free from benzene and are safe for 

their ordinary use.

160. Defendant’s business practices as alleged herein constitute deceptive, untrue, and 

misleading advertising pursuant to the FAL because Defendant has advertised the Products in an 

untrue and misleading manner, which Defendant knew or reasonably should have known, and 

omitted material information from the Products’ labeling.

161. Defendant profited from selling the falsely and deceptively advertised Products to 

unwary consumers.

162. As a result, Plaintiff LeGrand and the California Sub-Class, and the general public, 

are entitled to injunctive and equitable relief, restitution, and an order for disgorgement of the 

funds by which Defendant was unjustly enriched.

163. Pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17535, Plaintiff LeGrand, on behalf of herself 

and the California Sub-Class, seeks an order enjoining Defendant from continuing to engage in 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 43 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 44 -

deceptive business practices, false advertising, and any other act prohibited by law, including those 

set forth herein.

164. Because the Court has broad discretion to award restitution under the FAL and 

could, when assessing restitution under the FAL, apply a standard different than that applied to 

assessing damages under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act or commercial code, and restitution 

is not limited to returning to Plaintiff LeGrand and California Sub-Class members monies in which 

they have an interest, but more broadly serves to deter the offender and others from future 

violations, the legal remedies available under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and commercial 

code are more limited than the equitable remedies available under the FAL, and are therefore 

inadequate.

165. In addition, because the procedures for obtaining relief under the FAL are more 

efficient than under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act or commercial code, Plaintiff LeGrand’s 

legal remedies are inadequate.

COUNT VII

Violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act

(CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 1750 et seq.)

On Behalf of Plaintiff LeGrand and the California Sub-Class

166. Plaintiff LeGrand realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 68 

as though fully set forth herein.

167. Plaintiff LeGrand brings this claim individually and on behalf of the California 

Sub-Class pursuant to the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code 

§§ 1750 et seq.

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 44 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 45 -

168. The CLRA prohibits deceptive practices in connection with the conduct of a 

business that provides goods, property, or services primarily for personal, family, or household 

purposes.

169. Defendant’s false and misleading labeling and other policies, acts, and practices 

were designed to, and did, induce the purchase and use of the Products for personal, family, or 

household purposes by Plaintiff LeGrand and California Sub-Class members, and violated and 

continue to violate the following sections of the CLRA:

a. Section 1770(a)(5): representing that goods or services have sponsorship, 

approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not have;

b. Section 1770(a)(7); representing that goods are of a particular standard, 

quality, or grade if they are of another;

c. Section 1770(a)(9): advertising goods with intent not to sell them as 

advertised; and

d. Section 1770(a)(16): representing the subject of a transaction has been 

supplied in accordance with a previous representation when it has not.

170. Defendant profited from selling the falsely, deceptively, and unlawfully advertised 

Products to unwary consumers.

171. Defendant’s wrongful business practices constituted, and constitute, a continuing 

course of conduct in violation of the CLRA.

172. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 1782, on November 22, 2022, more than 30 

days before filing this consolidated complaint, Plaintiff LeGrand sent written notice of her claims 

and Defendant’s particular violations of the CLRA to Defendant by certified mail, return receipt 

requested, but Defendant has failed to implement remedial measures.

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 45 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 46 -

173. As a result of Defendant’s acts, Plaintiff LeGrand and the California Sub-Class 

have suffered harm, and therefore seek (a) actual damages resulting from purchases of the Products

sold throughout the Class Period, (b) punitive damages, (c) injunctive relief in the form of modified 

advertising, (d) restitution, and (e) attorneys’ fees and costs. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1782(d).

COUNT VIII

Violation of the Montana Unfair Trade Practices Act

(MONT. CODE §§ 30-14-101 et seq.)

On Behalf of Plaintiff Kerns and the Montana Sub-Class

174. Plaintiff Kerns realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 68 as 

though fully set forth herein.

175. Plaintiff Kerns brings this claim individually and on behalf of the Montana SubClass pursuant to the Montana Unfair Trade Practices Act (“MUTPA”), Mont. Code §§ 30-14-101 

et seq.

176. The MUTPA states that “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive 

acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.” Mont. Code § 30-15-103.

177. Section 30-14-101 et seq., Montana Statutes, prohibits unfair and/or deceptive trade 

practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.

178. Defendant is engaged in the practice of manufacturing, marketing, distributing, 

selling and otherwise placing into the stream of commerce the Products, which constitutes trade 

and commerce under section 30-14-102, and is therefore subject to MUTPA.

179. Section 30-14-101 et seq., Montana Statutes, creates a private right of action for 

individuals who are aggrieved by an unfair and/or deceptive trade practice by another person.

180. Defendant’s deceptive acts and practices are misleading in a material way because 

they fundamentally misrepresent the characteristics and quality of the Products to induce 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 46 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 47 -

consumers to purchase them. No reasonable consumer would knowingly purchase a dry shampoo 

product that may contain high levels of a known carcinogen.

181. Defendant’s conduct is substantially injurious to consumers. Consumers are 

purchasing and using Defendant’s Products without knowledge that the Products are contaminated 

with a human carcinogen. This conduct has caused, and continues to cause, substantial injury to 

consumers because consumers would not have paid for Products contaminated with benzene but 

for Defendant’s false labeling, advertising, and promotion. Thus, Plaintiff Kerns and the Montana 

Sub-Class have been “aggrieved” (i.e., lost money) as required for standing, and such an injury is 

not outweighed by any countervailing benefits to consumers or competition.

182. Because consumers reasonably rely on Defendant’s labeling of the ingredients and 

other information disclosing what is contained in the Products and injury resulting from ordinary 

use of the Products, consumers could not have reasonably avoided such injury.

183. Defendant’s actions are the direct, foreseeable, and proximate cause of the damages 

that Plaintiff Kerns and members of the Montana Sub-Class have sustained from having paid for 

and used Defendant’s Products.

184. As alleged herein, Plaintiff Kerns has suffered injury-in-fact and lost money as a 

result of Defendant’s conduct because she purchased Products from Defendant in reliance on 

Defendant’s representations that the ingredients in its Products were safe and effective and were 

not adulterated with benzene, a known human carcinogen.

185. As a result of Defendant’s violations, Plaintiff Kerns and members of the Montana 

Sub-Class have suffered damages because: (a) they paid a premium price in the amount of the full 

purchase price of the Products based on Defendant’s deceptive conduct, and (b) the Products do 

not have the characteristics, uses, benefits, or qualities promised.

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 47 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 48 -

186. Plaintiff Kerns and the Montana Sub-Class members are entitled to actual damages 

and their reasonable attorney’s fees. Mont. Code § 13-14-133.

COUNT IX

Unjust Enrichment

On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Classes

187. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 68 as though 

fully set forth herein.

188. Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of themselves and the Classes.

189. This claim is brought in the alternative pursuant to the laws of the state of Florida, 

or in the alternative, pursuant to the laws of the various Subclasses.

190. Plaintiffs, and the other members of the Classes, conferred benefits on Defendant 

in the form of monies paid to purchase Defendant’s defective and worthless Products.

191. Defendant voluntarily accepted and retained this benefit. 

192. Because this benefit was obtained unlawfully, namely by selling and accepting 

compensation for products unfit for human use, it would be unjust and inequitable for Defendant 

to retain the benefit without paying the value thereof. 

193. Defendant received benefits in the form of revenues from purchases of the Products 

to the detriment of Plaintiffs, and the other members of the Classes, because Plaintiffs, and 

members of the Classes, purchased mislabeled products that were not what they bargained for and 

were not safe and effective, as claimed. 

194. Defendant was unjustly enriched in retaining the revenues derived from the 

purchases of the Products by Plaintiffs and the other members of the Classes. Retention of those 

monies under these circumstances is unjust and inequitable because Defendant’s labeling of the 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 48 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 49 -

Products was misleading to consumers, which caused injuries to Plaintiffs, and members of the 

Classes, because they would not have purchased the Products had they known the true facts. 

195. Because Defendant’s retention of the non-gratuitous benefits conferred on them by 

Plaintiffs and members of the Classes is unjust and inequitable, Defendant must pay restitution to 

Plaintiffs and members of the Classes for its unjust enrichment, as ordered by the Court. 

196. Finally, Plaintiffs and members of the Classes may assert an unjust enrichment 

claim even though a remedy at law may otherwise exist.

COUNT X

Violation of State Consumer Fraud Acts

On Behalf of Plaintiffs and the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Subclass

197. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 68 as though fully set forth 

herein.

198. Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the 

Consumer Fraud Multi-State Subclass against Defendant.

199. The Consumer Fraud Acts of the States in the Consumer Fraud Multi-State 

Subclass prohibit the use of unfair or deceptive business practices in the conduct of trade or 

commerce.

200. Plaintiffs and Consumer Fraud Multi-State Subclass members have standing to 

pursue a cause of action for violation of the Consumer Fraud Acts of the states in the Consumer 

Fraud Multi-State Subclass because Plaintiffs and Consumer Fraud Multi-State Subclass members 

have suffered an injury in fact and lost money as a result of Defendant’s actions set forth herein.

201. Defendant engaged in unfair conduct, including but not limited to selling 

adulterated and misbranded products in violation of the FDCA.

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 49 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 50 -

202. Defendant engaged in deceptive conduct, including but not limited to 

misrepresenting that the Products did not contain or did not risk containing benzene, and failing to 

disclose that the Products contained or risked containing benzene.

203. Defendant intended that Plaintiffs and Consumer Fraud Multi-State Subclass 

members would rely upon its unfair and deceptive conduct and a reasonable person would, in fact, 

be misled by this deceptive conduct described above.

204. Given Defendant’s position in the health and beauty market as an industry leader, 

Plaintiffs and reasonable consumers trusted and relied on Defendant’s representations and 

omissions regarding the presence of benzene in the Products.

205. As a result of Defendant’s use or employment of unfair or deceptive acts or business 

practices, Plaintiffs and Consumer Fraud Multi-State Subclass members have sustained damages 

in an amount to be proven at trial.

206. In addition, Defendant’s conduct showed malice, motive, and reckless disregard of 

the truth such that an award of punitive damages is appropriate.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the other members of the Classes 

alleged herein, respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against 

Defendant as follows: 

A. For an order certifying the Classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure and naming Plaintiffs as the representatives for the Classes and Plaintiffs’ attorneys as 

Class Counsel; 

B. For an order declaring the Defendant’s conduct violates the causes of action 

referenced herein; 

C. For an order finding in favor of Plaintiffs and the Classes on all counts asserted 

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 50 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 51 -

herein;

D. For compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages in amounts to be determined by 

the Court and/or jury; 

E. For prejudgment interest on all amounts awarded; 

F. For an order of restitution and all other forms of equitable monetary relief; 

G. For injunctive relief as pleaded or as the Court may deem proper; and 

H. For an order awarding Plaintiffs and the Classes their reasonable attorneys’ fees, 

expenses, and costs of suit.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs and Class members hereby demand a trial by jury, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 

38(b), of all issues so triable.

Dated: March 29, 2023.

Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Kristen Lake Cardoso 

Kristen Lake Cardoso (FBN 44401)

Jeff Ostrow (FBN 121452)

Jonathan M. Streisfeld (FBN 117447)

KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON

WEISELBERG GILBERT

One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Telephone: (954) 525-4100

ostrow@kolawyers.com

cardoso@kolawyes.com

streisfeld@kolawyers.com

Sarah N. Westcot (FBN 1018272)

Stephen A. Beck (FBN 1010183)

Jonathan L. Wolloch (FBN 1039105)

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.

701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420

Miami, FL 33131

Telephone: (305) 330-5512

swestcot@bursor.com

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 51 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 52 -

sbeck@bursor.com

jwolloch@bursor.com

BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 

Max S. Roberts (pro hac vice forthcoming)

888 Seventh Avenue 

New York, NY 10019 

Telephone: (646) 837-7150 

Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 

E-Mail: mroberts@bursor.com

MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON 

PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 

Gary Klinger (pro hac vice forthcoming)

227 W. Monroe Street 

Chicago, IL 60606 

Tel: (866) 252-0878 

Email: gklinger@milberg.com 

rbusch@milberg.com

MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON 

PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 

Nick Suciu III (pro hac vice forthcoming)

6905 Telegraph Rd., Suite 115 

Bloomfield Hills, MI 483021 

Tel: (313) 303-3472 

Email: nsuciu@milberg.com

MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON 

PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 

Erin J. Ruben (pro hac vice forthcoming)

900 W. Morgan Street 

Raleigh, NC 27603 

Tel: (919) 600-5000 

Email: eruben@milberg.com

LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC 

Kevin Laukaitis (pro hac vice forthcoming)

737 Bainbridge Street #155 

Philadelphia, PA 19147 

Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com

GABRIELLI LEVITT LLP

Michael J. Gabrielli (pro hac vice)

2426 Eastchester Rd., Ste. 215

Bronx, NY 10469

Tel: (718) 708-5322

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 52 of 53
000003/01445338_1 - 53 -

Email: michael@gabriellilaw.com

AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & 

OVERHOLTZ, PLLC

Brian Aylstock (FBN 78263)

R. Jason Richards (FBN 18207)

803 N. Palafox Street

Pensacola, FL 32501

Telephone: 850-916-7450

Facsimile: 850-916-7449 

E-mail: baylstock@awkolaw.com

jrichards@awkolaw.com 

FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP 

Paul K. Joseph (pro hac vice)

paul@fitzgeraldjoseph.com

2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200 

San Diego, California 92110 

Phone: (619) 215-1741

POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, 

LLC

Paul Doolittle (pro hac vice)

Blake Abbott (pro hac vice)

32 Ann Street

Charleston, SC 29403

(P): (843) 614-8888

(F): (843) 494-5536

Email: pauld@akimlawfirm.com 

blake@akimlawfirm.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative 

Classes

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on March 29, 2023, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 

of the Court through the CM/ECF system which will send a notice of electronic filing to all counsel 

of record.

/s/ Kristen Lake Cardoso 

Kristen Lake Cardoso

Case 0:22-cv-62054-AHS Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/29/2023 Page 53 of 53