Nerium’s flagship product Nerium AD has come under fire, following the filing of a new lawsuit in Missouri

As per BehindMLM’s Nerium review (2014), the company claims Nerium AD (“Age Defying”)

contains the most effective ingredients available, including our exclusive, patented NAE-8 extract, which has powerful antioxidant properties that help reduce the appearance of many signs of aging.

According to plaintiff Christina Swiatek, Nerium AD also causes chemical burns, permanent skin damage.

Swiatek, a resident of Illinois, claims she purchased Nerium AD from one of Nerium’s affiliates.

After using Nerium AD “as directed and intended”, Swiatek claims the product inflicted chemical burns, irritation and permanent skin damage.

Swiatek’s particular symptoms include ‘painful, severe and permanent injuries to her face and neck’, which she claims have left her “disfigured”.

Swiatek alleges Nerium had a duty to ‘supply a product that was not unsafe, not unreasonably dangerous and not defective‘.

Nerium was aware that users of its product had reported adverse and severe reactions to the product in question.

Nerium failed to inform its consumers of such prior reported events and failed to notify its sales representatives of (the) same.

Nerium further encouraged its sales representatives to continue supplying the product while Nerium suppressed and/or withheld the adverse reaction reports.

Nerium additionally trained or encourages its sales representatives to attempt to persuade consumers who experienced adverse reactions to remains silent about such reactions.

Nerium did all of the above in conscious disregard for the safety, comfort and well being of its customers, so that Nerium could continue reaping financial benefits from the sale and distribution of the product.

Nerium placed profits above safety.

Citing pain, mental anguish and the ongoing cost of ‘additional ameliorative ointments, creams and lotions‘, Swiatek’s December 7th lawsuit seeks damages in excess of $100,000 for “loss of normal life”.

Nerium responded to Swiatek’s lawsuit on January 30th by pretty much denying any and all responsibility.

Swiatek is barred from recovering any damages because any injuries or damages allegedly sustained by Swiatek were caused … by other persons’ contributory or comparative negligence, fault, responsibility or causation and want of care.

Swiatek’s contributory negligence constituted more than 50% of any and all negligence involved in this matter and therefore should be barred from recovery under Illinois law.

Such negligence or fault … was in greater proportion to the negligence or fault of Nerium, if any.

Yes, you’re reading that right. Nerium are attempting to shift the blame back onto a consumer, who only used a product they manufacture as directed.

And if that wasn’t shonky enough for you, get a load of some of Nerium’s ballsy affirmative defenses;

Swiatek is barred from recovering damages because Nerium AD’s allegedly dangerous and defective condition, which Nerium denies, was open and obvious.

Swiatek’s claim is barred pursuant to the assumption of the risk doctrine in that Swiatek assumed any risks associated with using Nerium AD.

Suck it Swiatek, it was totally on you to figure out Nerium AD would ruin your life prior to using it.

Swiatek’s alleged injuries, damages, or losses, if any, were the direct, proximate, and foreseeable result of Swiatek’s individual and unique physical and bodily condition at the time of, prior to, or subsequent to the events alleged in the Petition.

Was the “individual and unique condition” Swiatek’s had “being human”?

Swiatek is barred from recovering any damages because there was no practical or technically feasible design that would have prevented the harm alleged without substantially impairing the usefulness or intended purpose of Nerium AD … (or) compromising its usefulness.

Uh well, yeah… Other than, y’know, not selling it to consumers in the first place.

My take?

If you sell someone a product and they use it as directed, they shouldn’t be getting chemical burns, permanent skin damage or disfigurement without any prior warning any under any circumstances.

That’s on you as the supplier of the product. And if Nerium AD’s side-effects are as bad and widespread as it sounds, surely there’s an FDA lawsuit in there somewhere too?

Nerium has asked the court to dismiss Swiatek’s lawsuit and award them legal costs. Or in the alternative, find Swiatek partially responsible for her own injuries and proportionally reduce claimed damages.

Stay tuned…


Update 25th January 2018 – As per a joint scheduling plan filed on January 9th, Swiatek’s case is tentatively expected to be ready for trial by April or May, 2019.


Update 10th June 2018 – As of April 2018 Swiatek has settled with both Nerium Skincare and Nerium International.

Her lawsuit against both companies has subsequently dismissed with prejudice.