A proposed class of consumers is asking a California federal court to give final approval to a $2.8 million settlement to resolve claims that the makers of Huda Beauty eye makeup sold products that had pigments that federal regulators prohibited from using around the eyes.
Plaintiffs Cristie Ramirez and Natalie Linarte asked the court to give the go-ahead to the deal with HB USA Holdings Inc., saying the positive response from the proposed class and lack of objections shows that it is a fair and worthwhile end to the litigation.
Ramirez and Linarte allege that HB USA marketed its “Neon Obsessions” line of eye products as eye makeup, despite containing pigments that were banned from use for eye makeup by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
It is unlawful for HB to sell these products, and the company concealed the irritants by hiding its disclaimers, which directly contradicted its marketing, behind the shrink-wrap on the packaging, so they couldn’t be read without buying and opening them first.
The parties agreed to the settlement deal in June, and preliminary approval was granted in August.Since then, there have been more than 83,000 claims made, no objections, and only one opt-out.
Under the deal, class members are eligible for a $29 payment for each product — equal to the retail price — for up to three products. Class members who received direct notice via email and mailings will not need to provide proof of purchase, while those who did not receive direct notice will need to provide it.
Class members who cannot provide proof of purchase can submit a claim of up to $30 total for three products.
While HB no longer sells the products in the U.S., it has agreed that should it ever rerelease them or a substantially similar product, it will include a visible disclosure on the label warning of the pigments as well as on its website and advertisements that show the product being applied near the eyes.
HB has agreed to pay attorney fees, but the settlement does not have an agreement on the amount and HB has reserved the right to dispute the amount.
Ramirez and Linarte each filed requests for fees for the firms representing them, with Ramirez requesting $716,240 for her counsel, Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, while Linarte requested $467,000 in fees and $883.90 for costs and expenses for her counsel, Beshada Farnese LLP.
The settlement does not include incentive awards for either named plaintiff.