May 19, 2020

Huda Beauty Lawsuit for Unsafe Eyeshadow Palettes

A class action lawsuit has been allegedly taken out on Huda Beauty due to last year’s Neon Obsessions Palettes being falsely advertised as eyeshadows. A lot of people tend to jump on me when I mention in my reviews that certain eyeshadows or palettes are not safe for eyes. “But it’s safe in the Europe….! It’s just a US thing!” First off, I live in the US so, yeah, it’s a US thing and in the US certain dyes are deemed unsafe for eye use. Secondly, they are deemed unsafe for eye use for good reason. Some people have sensitive eyes and these dyes can irritate sensitive eyes and cause an allergic reaction. That’s why they say “unsafe for immediate eye use”. Thirdly, I can’t review an eyeshadow palette and not explain in my post that certain shades shouldn’t be used on your eyes!

When Huda released the Neon Obsessions Palette they were deemed “Eyeshadow Palette” on sites like Sephora. Sephora actually switched that around within days of my review and started called them “Palettes”. There were also numerous beauty sites that took to advertising the launch as an eyeshadow palettes doing a variety of different looks using them, etc…never once alerting the user that the formula was a pressed pigment and wasn’t meant for immediate eye use. There’s a lot of loop holes with the disclosure of what is and isn’t eye safe. Brands like Colourpop, ABH, and others have gotten away with how they disclose that information to consumers.

In the case, of the Neon Obsessions Palettes things were really sneaky because there was no mention of the palette being unsafe unless you thought to peel back the first label on the palette to reveal a secondary label with the disclosure. Most people probably didn’t do that and just assumed and trusted the palette could be used safely on their eyes.

According to a report on the Top Class Actions website the claimant in the website suffered physical injury, including eye irritation, as a result of using the Neon Obsessions Palette.

Did I see this coming? Yes. I think it was just a matter of time before someone got sued for this. I think brands need to take more responsibility for the way they advertise things. I swear I was all Thanos here for a sec, “I finally rest and watch the sun rise on a grateful universe.” Because seriously, I’ve been ranting about this topic for ages now. I’m not happy by any means Huda is being sued. That sucks. I am however, hopeful this will open the eyes of brands and make them more transparent with their fans.

What do you think of this lawsuit?

19 Comments

About the Muse

Isabella MuseIsabella is just an average everyday geeky girl who doesn’t blend her eyeshadow correctly, wears too much blush, and hopes she never finds her holy grail products because she likes the thrill of the chase so much. Her mission is to bring you super honest reviews on makeup, skincare, fragrance and all things beauty. She’s in no way an expert on the topic and she sure as hell isn’t a super model. But she’s passionate about makeup and is seeking like-minded individuals that like pina coladas, getting caught in the rain, and ones that enjoy spending hundreds of dollars at Sephora without feeling buyer’s remorse. If you’re that person feel free to reach out and leave a comment or follow me on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and Bloglovin‘.

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Comments

  • Lauren

    I don’t understand the point of these types palettes (and there are several out there). They can’t be used for the eyes, so what are you supposed to do with them? Why can’t companies just create usable products like they normally do?

    • Isabella Muse

      I guess they create them for more artistry looks but really the average consumer is not creating art.

  • Courtney

    I’m happy about this because I’m tired of false advertising and their bullsh*t with pressed pigments (all brands). They need to stop being lazy and formulate eyeshadows according to the USA laws or petition for those laws to be changed.

    You know I’ve ranted about this on my blog and on YouTube and people think I’m overreacting. I do 99% of my shopping online. I EXPECT the disclosure for ingredients to available online at the point of purchase / when I add it to my cart. I have bought so many ‘eyeshadow palettes’ online without knowing that they were not eye safe in the USA. And Sephora has given me a hard time when I’ve complained and returned them in some instances.

    • Isabella Muse

      PREACH PREACH PREACH. It drives me bonkers. I rage on this topic so much! People think the same about me and always correct me to say “but it’s fine in the UK…!” I live in the US, it’s not fine here! It needs to be way more transparent!

  • Monica

    Whaaaaaat??
    Oh man, this sucks big time!
    I am in Mexico and the high end brands are expensive af, so let me say it one more time, this sucks!
    I haven’t used any of the palettes because they are so pretty now amscared. I am not particularly sensitive to makeup so I am not too worried, but really, makeup brands really have to be responsible and advertise properly.

  • Diana

    I also dislike the increasing use of dyes and other unapproved for eye area use ingredients in “eyeshadow” palettes. But I happen to be one of the people with sensitive skin/eyes. If reviewers say something might stain, it will probably stain my eyelids. Some of those pigment agents also give me burning/itching/swelling/rashes. Maybe the FDA will come out with strict labeling guidelines (such as defining font size and placement of the warnings on the packaging and the warning(s) must come on the product as well, not only just on the disposable outer box) if businesses wish to continue putting those ingredients in there and the class action gains traction.

    • Isabella Muse

      FDA should do that because right now it’s the wild wild west with glitters and unsafe dyes!

  • Lauren

    Wow I didn’t even know that’s what the “pressed pigment” angle was about. I just thought it was some trendy marketing lingo for a super saturated eye color… which I guess it IS but lord – what an opaque way to frame it. I suppose if you had the sensitivity- you’d know to avoid. And if you didn’t – you’d buy. Some clever PR was behind this. Someone was paid a lot of $$$ to obscure the issue at hand and keep sales going. You are right, it’s good they were called out.

  • Eraser

    I’m from a family of lawyers so I’m familiar with a principle known as assumption of the risk. Put quite simply, it’s a legal defense. X buys eyeshadow from Y knowing that there might be something in it that the FDA says is not safe for eye products. X likes the color and doesn’t really care. However, later on she has a reaction that requires medical treatment, so she decides to sue Y. Y has to demonstrate that she knew all about the potential hazard but assumed the risk anyway. Sigh… sometimes I wonder if there are people left who take responsibility for themselves.

    • Isabella Muse

      so some extent I agree however, some younger makeup users or new users to the makeup world aren’t “consumer smart” and just trust the brand when they said hey this an eyeshadow palette when in fact it isn’t at all and the shades shouldn’t be used on your eyes. When you say something is one thing but it’s something entirely different plus you disclose that in small letters or you hide the disclosure that is in fact wrong. Brands need to be more transparent and explain things a bit more.

    • Carol

      I agree with taking responsibility but how can you do that if you don’t know? I am 51 years old and if I buy an eyeshadow palette, I would use it on my eyes. I wouldn’t scour the label to see in tiny print, “not safe for the immediate eye area”. I think this is deceptive advertising. I agree with another person who said they didn’t know the difference between a pressed pigment and an eyeshadow. I didn’t either, until I started reading reviews about certain products. I just thought a pressed pigment was a technical term for eyeshadow. So yes, to some degree, we are all responsible but the company making the product has the responsibility to put a warning somewhere where the consumer can SEE it. Think cigarette packages…

      • Isabella Muse

        I agree 100%. I just think things need to be more transparent because the average user is not looking for the small disclosure.

  • Chris

    A friend of mine was in the Peace Corp in Zambia and at their equivalent of Walmart guess what was being sold there? Insecticides that previously & currently are banned in the US!
    I’m not shocked reading this blog.

  • Kay

    I am in the UK but this still really drives me nuts – these products are obviously eyeshadow palettes, they look like eyeshadow palettes and they know consumers are buying them to use on their eyes and market them as such, but they know they can’t legally call them that because of the ingredients they contain so we get “pressed pigments”. Some people will equate pressed pigment with just being another word for eyeshadow (I used to!) and will not even think to check the label for a warning, let alone one that’s hidden away. I’m glad this is happening now to be honest, companies need to improve their practices and not expect to get away with this because they didn’t TECHNICALLY say it’s eyeshadow – they shouldn’t be able to sell “pressed pigment” palettes which are marketed to look like regular safe eyeshadow palettes!

    I own a palette made and sold in the UK by a UK company – it’s eyeshadow here because they’re legally allowed to sell it as such, but even that palette has a clear warning on the box and the palette itself that some ingredients in shade X and Y are considered unsafe for eye use in the USA – that’s the responsible thing to do!

  • Eraser

    Oh, I agree completely. In the hypothetical situation I posed, the label would certainly be an issue – was it clear, posted prominently, etc. I’m all for total transparency for many reasons and I myself read labels like a hawk only to still find them lacking information.

    It just bothers me when some people are irresponsible – my prime example is the woman who stuck a blistering hot cup of coffee in a flimsy paper cup between her legs and then sued McDonald’s because she got burned. She won, too.

    • Isabella Muse

      I agree with that. That lawsuit was dumb. I see a lot of questionable lawsuits in my daily job/work so, totally get what you mean!

    • Lisa

      Actually, the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit was due to the irresponsibility of McDonalds who had received over 700 complaints of excessively hot coffee in the 10 YEARS prior to the 1992 incident that resulted in the 79 year old woman receiving 3rd degree burns from the 190 degree coffee. Mrs. Leideck was the passenger in a car that was parked as she took the lid off her coffee to add cream and sugar. The resulting injury required multiple skin grafts and many days in the hospital.