Zipcode:

Kim Kardashian Sued by Makers of No!No! Hair Removal

Share

Recently, starlet Kim Kardashian’s found herself in the middle of market battle between No!No! and TRIA brand home hair removal products. The reality show darling became a spokesperson for TRIA in the fall of 2011. Subsequently, she discussed the product on talk shows and tweeted statements in support of TRIA brand products. Rival company No!No! and its parent company, Radiancy, claim some of her statements have mislead consumers and are suing Kardashian for false advertisement.

TRIA and No!No! brand products are vying for a share of the booming laser hair removal industry. Both companies offer home hair removal devices that can be purchased at a fraction of the price of laser hair removal. These products yield slower and sometimes varying results in comparison to laser hair removal clinic visits, but don’t require visits to a hair removal specialist every six to eight weeks. TRIA utilizes a laser system that fries hair roots to discourage regrowth and lessen the time customers spent shaving. No!No! uses a patented thermal system that conducts heat energy into follicles to deteriorate the hair shaft. These products and clinical laser hair removal take advantage of the chemical melanin in hair, which gives hair its pigment, and allows heat to be absorbed by the darker strands rather than the lighter skin around it.

The legal case refers to statements by Kardashian claiming that TRIA’s products were effective for treating all areas of her body and that the results were permanent. Radiancy says that TRIA’s products are unsafe for areas such as eyelids and nipples and in no way offers a permanent hair removal solution. Her claims have soured the market towards their competing product line and she should pay the consequences.

Some legal analysts think Radiancy may have a case. Regarding the TRIA product, Kardashian stated that, “you'll never need razors or shaving cream again;" however, the instruction manual that comes with the TRIA devices clearly states that it should be used in conjunction with shaving and waxing, not as a replacement. Similarly, Kardashian’s tweet that she was “seeing results” from the TRIA product came only a couple weeks after becoming a spokesperson for TRIA and beginning treatment, while the TRIA product literature mentions it should take up to ninety days to begin seeing any noticeable results.

This case and other recent high-profile scandals stem from a trend of celebrities being paid to promote certain products via social media. Typical spokesperson promotion includes speaking at events and appearing in ads or commercials, all relatively scripted activities. With sites like Twitter and Facebook, people are encouraged to share daily thoughts and activities without a filter. Politicians and celebrities such as former congressman Anthony Weiner and comedian Gilbert Gottfried have made short-sighted quips on Twitter that later damaged their careers. Social media statements are a legal gray area in terms of misrepresentation and defamation that will be defined more clearly through the rulings of this and similar cases.

At the most recent court hearing regarding the case, Kardashian sought a dismissal. The 31-year-old claimed her heritage and dark features gives her a pass on misrepresenting the company. Sources in courtroom report her saying, "Being Armenian and hairy, I thought [TRIA] was the perfect product." Whether this argument will get Miss Kardashian off the hook has yet to be seen, but sources in the Los Angeles spotted Kardashian exiting a laser hair removal center in April suggesting she is exploring other hair removal options .

Interested in exploring your own affordable hair removal solution without the drama? Contact us to schedule an appointment with a certified hair removal specialist today.

Want to share your thoughts?

Post your comment
Comments(0)