Within months of a D.C. district court ruling rejecting the final settlement of claims that L’Oréal deceives consumers by labeling some of its products as “salon only” when they are available for sale in mass-market retail stores, the plaintiffs have apparently filed an amended complaint; the court has rescheduled a status conference in the matter for april 25, 2014. Richardson v. L’Oréal USA, Inc., no. 13-0508 (U.S.. Dist. Ct., D.D.C., re-filed January 27, 2014). additional details about the court’s initial ruling giving preliminary approval to the settlement appear in issue 6 of this Report. among other matters, the amended complaint reportedly seeks restitution as well as injunctive relief.
The court had previously rejected the settlement, in part, because injunctive relief was the only remedy that would have been provided to class members. the court agreed with counsel for the Center for Class action Fairness, representing an objector, that the settlement was not fair in requiring class members to surrender any class-wide claims for damages in exchange for labeling changes, while plaintiffs’ counsel would receive nearly $1 million in fees and class representatives would receive $1,000 each. the court also determined that requiring absent class members to release their right to bring any type of class action seeking damages is improper under Federal rule of Civil procedure 23(b)(2), which does not give absent class members the right to opt out or entitle them to the best notice practicable. See Mealey’s Class Actions, February 21, 2014.