The lawsuit is Caryn Collazo et al vs. Wen By Chaz Dean, Inc., et al, Case No. 2:15-cv-01974, in the US District Court of the Central District of California. WEN by Chaz Dean Inc. attempted to have the action dismissed by way of an argument that WEN's California citizenship is insufficient to show that it manufactured, distributed or advertised the allegedly harmful products in the State of California – and thus, could not be sued.
US District Court Judge Otis D. Wright II called the defendant’s position “impudent,” “misguided” and bordering on “absurdity.
“In fact, there is not a single published case that suggests a California company, with a principal place of business and headquarters in California, cannot be sued in California for violating California consumer protection laws,” Judge Wright said.
The WEN Hair Products lawsuit alleges that products identified in the case contain a caustic ingredient that triggers a chemical reaction that results in damage to hair and hair follicles, together with other Wen Hair Loss Side Effects. It is also alleged that the products contain little or no actual cleansers, which effectively categorizes the products more in line with a lotion – rather than a shampoo – lotions that can entrap dirt and oil into the hair follicles.
In allowing the class action WEN Hair Products lawsuit to move forward, Judge Wright patently dismissed the defendant’s arguments to have the lawsuit tossed.
“If defendants use a web-hosting service out of Russia, then defendants believe they should only be subject to Russia’s consumer protection laws for all web-based consumer protection claims,” the judge said. “After all, that is where the conduct ‘originated.’”
READ MORE WEN HAIR PRODUCTS LEGAL NEWS
Judge Wright held in his ruling that out-of-state plaintiffs may proceed to litigate claiming Wen Hair Loss Side Effects, despite not living in the State of California. It should be noted that the above-noted lawsuit does not name Guthy-Renker, the manufacturer of WEN hair products. A separate lawsuit has been filed against Guthy-Renker (Friedman et al. v. Guthy-Renker, case number 2:14-cv-06009, in US District Court, Central District of California).