A woman is suing a cosmetic organization with numerous superstar clients, alleging its phony eyelashes that incorporate mink fur are falsely advertised as currently being created in a “cruelty-free” way when in simple fact they produced in China in a method abusive to the semiaquatic mammals.
“The animals often present indications of extraordinary psychological distress, this kind of as frantic circling and self-mutilation, and suffer from bacterial infections, gaping wounds and other illnesses and injuries that generally go untreated,” in accordance to Haylee Woodard’s proposed Los Angeles Outstanding Courtroom lawsuit towards El Segundo-based mostly Lilly Lashes LLC.
Woodard’s lawsuit allegations incorporate untrue marketing, shopper fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of convey guarantee and negligent misrepresentation. Woodard seeks an injunction versus Lilly Lashes’ alleged manufacturing methods as nicely as a refund to all course customers who purchased mink eyelashes from April 2018 to the current in the match introduced Tuesday.
A Lilly Lashes representative did not straight away reply to a ask for for remark.
Lilly Lashes sells cosmetics, like wrong eyelashes, eyeliner and mascara through the company’s site as nicely as via these types of retail retailers as Sephora, Ulta Attractiveness and Amazon.com., generally concentrating on young individuals by way of the social media, the accommodate states. Lilly Lashes has 2.4 million followers on Instagram and promises that Jennifer Lopez, Kim Kardashian, Kylie Jenner, Rihanna and Girl Gaga are “just a few of the A-List celebrities that have rocked the purple carpet in their Lilly Lashes,” the go well with states.
The company’s founder is Lilly Ghalichi, a previous truth television identity who appeared on “Shahs of Sunset” on the Bravo network, the suit states.
Woodard began getting Lilly Lashes mink fur eyelashes at many locations in Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties and paid $19 to $24 for each item, the accommodate states.
“At the time of purchase … (Woodard) considered that the mink was `cruelty-no cost,”’ but she would not have acquired the items experienced she known the procedures allegedly utilized to make them, the go well with states.
“Despite advertising its lashes as `cruelty-totally free,’ Lilly Lashes understands that is lashes are made in a way that is harmful to animals,” according to the fit, which cites a May 2020 short article released on the Individuals for the Ethical Treatment method of Animals internet site stating that the mink fur from which the mink eyelashes are manufactured occur from animals “confined in cramped wire cages that are generally caked with squander.”
When the mink fur is all set to be harvested, farmers generally use the least expensive killing strategies obtainable — which include gassing, electrocution and neck- breaking — before peeling the pores and skin off the animals’ bodies, in accordance to the accommodate.
“Animal cruelty is obviously an crucial concern for customers of Sephora, Lilly Lashes and other brand names that current market items to youthful female individuals,” the go well with states.
Lilly Lashes also posts phony shopper opinions on its web-site that are actually written by its personal workforce in order to entice potential buyers into obtaining the lashes, and markets some of its mink fur lashes as “vegan,” in accordance to the match.
“Defendants proceed to have interaction in the deceptive follow and therefore, unwary customers are injured on a day-to-day basis by (Lilly Lashes’) illegal carry out,” the accommodate states.
Woodard may acquire the products yet again if they do not include mink and are effectively labeled, the match states.