“In a new legal move, a competing hair removal company claims Kim Kardashian and the company she works for have misled consumers about all things follicle.
Kim is the hairless face of TRIA, a home laser hair-removal system. Radiant, a rival company that sells no!no! hair, claims Kim has deceived the public with her pitch, specifically …
— Kim claims she uses TRIA over her entire body, but Radiant maintains even TRIA says it’s not safe for the face, head, ears, neck, nipples, genitals or anus.
— Kim touts TRIA by claiming “You’ll never need razors or shaving cream again.” But according to the lawsuit, TRIA’s instructions note the product is supposed to be used in concert with shaving. . .” – TMZ has the full story.
The Legal Talk
California’s Unfair Business Competition law, section 17500 states:
“It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or indirectly to . . . to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated from this state before the public in any state, in any newspaper or other publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry or proclamation, or in any other manner or means whatever, including over the Internet, any statement, concerning that real or personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, or concerning any circumstance or matter of fact connected with the proposed performance or disposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading, or for any person, firm, or corporation to so make or disseminate or cause to be so made or disseminated any such statement as part of a plan or scheme with the intent not to sell that personal property or those services, professional or otherwise, so advertised at the price stated therein, or as so advertised. Any violation of the provisions of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not
exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or by both that imprisonment and fine. . .”
Simply put, you can’t engage in false advertising. But, why would Radiant Beauty sue KK? This is an easy fix, not so? Why not take her aside and educate her on the products? One reason might be the need to clearly distance themselves from KK and publicly make known they are not at fault for any misrepresentation, in case of lawsuits from the public against them, given the anger over KK’s wedding debacle. Radiant Beauty might also have already done the prerequisite training as most companies should do with their brand ambassadors. Now, they feel they are at crossroads.
Either way, we will see how this shakes out. By the way, notice the criminal provision on the law above? You can be sued on a civil front as well as have the D.A throw the books at you.
For Brand Ambassador agreements, click here and get caught up with what goes into one.