BOSTON (Legal Newsline) – Ulta Salon Cosmetics & Fragrance Inc. and Sexy Hair Concepts have filed a second motion to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that the companies made false claims about the contents in Healthy Sexy Sulfate-Free Soy Moisturizing shampoo.
The most recent motion to dismiss, filed June 23 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, is a response to an amended complaint. Legal Newsline previously reported that the plaintiff, Molly Crane, originally claimed in her suit that Ulta Salon and Sexy Hair Concepts ran an advertisement for shampoo stating that the product was sulfate- and salt-free.
She alleged that the shampoo, however, listed sulfate and salt on its container. According to the motion, she sued for the alleged violation of Chapter 93A of the Massachusetts General Laws and unjust enrichment.
The defendants asked the court to dismiss Crane's suit based on failure to state a claim and for "lack of standing to the extent that plaintiff asserts claims for products that she did not purchase."
Ulta Salon and Sexy Hair Concepts argued that Crane failed to state a claim because she "has not pled facts that plausibly show a deceptive act by defendants that caused her an injury under Chapter 93A."
The motion also argued that Crane failed to plausibly allege that she paid too much for the shampoo and that the product's label violated any legally mandated standard.
The defendants also claimed that Crane failed to plausibly allege a casual connection between the alleged misleading label and the injury she allegedly suffered from using a shampoo containing sodium sulfate.
Additionally, the defendants state that Crane failed to plausibly allege a deceptive act, show unjust enrichment, and adequately plead facts that support the unjust enrichment claims "to the extent such claims concern salts."
The plaintiff listed other products in her suit other than the shampoo she purchased, but the defendants argue that "because plaintiff does not allege that she ever purchased any product in Sexy Hair’s 'Sulfate-Free' line other than the shampoo, she cannot assert and lacks standing to assert that she was harmed by such products."
Want to get notified whenever we write about
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Next time we write about
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
we'll email you a link to the story. You may edit your settings or unsubscribe at any time.