The plaintiffs, Amy Friedman, Judi Miller, and Krystal Henry-McArther, all purchased and used WEN themselves only to discover their hair fell out. Where they differed is that Miller purchased WEN over the phone, while Friedman and Henry-McArthur made their purchases via the Guthy-Renker website.
Guthy-Renker responded to the lawsuit by filing a Motion to Dismiss based on three arguments including an argument that by purchasing WEN, Guthy-Renker claims the women who purchased the product online agreed to binding arbitration (there is apparently no binding arbitration clause when the product is purchased online).
But Friedman and Henry-McArthur argue that Guthy-Renker did not give customers proper inquiry notice of the terms involving arbitration. Since they were not given notice of the terms, the plaintiffs allege, they should not be forced to submit to arbitration. The courts were then left to weigh how the WEN website is laid-out, particularly as it relates to the terms and conditions section.
READ MORE WEN HAIR PRODUCTS LEGAL NEWS
Guthy-Renker also argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed because there were no written warranties about WEN. Specifically, the company argued, their claims about WEN were not a promise about the product, merely a description of the product. The court found, however, that statements such as "The more you use, the better the results!" are more than product descriptions and do warrant the product's effectiveness and safety. As a result, the court refused to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis of no breach of warranty. As a result, portions of the lawsuit were allowed to continue.
The lawsuit is Friedman et al v. Guthy-Renker LLC. Case number 2:14-cv-06009, in U.S. District Court, Central District of California.