Comments on: Class action lawyers: lipstick and lip gloss do not last for hours as advertised

By: kimsch

kimsch — Mon, 08 Oct 2012 00:27:30 +0000

@Amy,

I’m lead (with Ted) in another of Ted’s cases. They accused me of being professional too. I’ve never objected before. My case is the HP ink case. It’s going to the Ninth the day before election day.

By: Amy Alkon

Amy Alkon — Sun, 07 Oct 2012 15:42:59 +0000

Bill, Ted Frank is doing this, with his site for Class Action Fairness. I volunteered to be the lead plaintiff in his case about the abuses in the Costco case — class action lawyers who seem to be in the business of abuse, not the business of representing their clients.

I loved when they accused me of being a “professional plaintiff.” I’m a professional scold (I wrote a book subtitled “One woman’s battle to beat some manners into impolite society) and part of that is going after scam artists and others who treat you unfairly, which is just what Ted is doing.

The other things I loved about this case — I actually LOVE Costco and drive a hybrid that gets 65mpg when there’s no traffic (2004 Honda Insight — spent $93 on gas last year), and if Costco made any extra cash on me, it was probably a quarter of a cent or something.

By: robert

robert — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 23:31:00 +0000

It’s like Lionel Hutz suing the makers of the move “The Neverending Story” for false advertising

By: mojo

mojo — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 21:24:09 +0000

“Oh, the HORROR!”

By: John Burgess

John Burgess — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 18:16:01 +0000

They should have stayed with wax lips.

By: Bumper

Bumper — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 17:23:23 +0000

Probably the reason the lipstick didn’t last longer was from their licking their lips in anticipation of the coupon they will receive for more lipstick, while their lawyers will ask for millions of real dollars for litigating this horrible injustice.

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 05 Oct 2012 15:28:30 +0000

Something needs to be done to correct this BS which gets the class participants next to nothing (and can get them only $8.99 each at most), is a MAJOR waste of court time and resources, and only enriches the attorneys bringing the case.

The WSJ article says that the product in question “retails for $8.99 per tube on Maybelline’s website.” This is a perfect situation where free market forces will be self-correcting and will determine if the product is a success or a failure, assuming the product’s success is dependent on repeat sales and tied to the manufacturer’s reputation. If a woman buys the stuff and doesn’t like it for any reason (including it doesn’t last as long as claimed), she presumably won’t buy it again. On the other hand, the product could be great in all other respects, and the longevity might be a minor issue for a particular consumer, and she will think it is worth the price and buy it again.

My take on this might be different if the product in question were dangerous and not apparent to the consumer and people were actually injured. For example, if a make-up manufactuter sold a poisonous compound, the stakes would be much higher than the retail price of the product.