Plaintiff Irene Burgess has filed a lawsuit against Paparazzi in California.

Burgess’ proposed class-action was filed on June 2nd. Central to the lawsuit are alleged misrepresentations regarding toxic metals in Paparazzi jewelry.

Paparazzi is the sole defendant in Burgess’ lawsuit.

As alleged by Burgess in her complaint;

Despite earlier representations and express warranties stating that Defendant’s products are “lead-free and nickel-free,” Defendant designed, sourced, and sold jewelry that allegedly contained detectable levels of lead and nickel, among other heavy metals.

Between November 20, 2021, and January 9, 2022, Defendant removed the “lead-free and nickel-free” representations from its website.

Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes, and contrary to the representations on defendant’s website, the Products contain lead and nickel, which, if disclosed to Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes prior to purchase, would have resulted in Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes not purchasing or using the Products.

As a result, the Products’ labeling is deceptive and misleading. Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Classes, as defined below, bring related claims under both the common law and relevant state and federal statutes.

Burgess seeks to represent other Paparazzi Consultants who were also deceived, separated into national and California specific classes.

Across six counts, Burgess’ accuses Paparazzi of

  1. negligent misrepresentation;
  2. fraudulent misrepresentations;
  3. restitution (sought as a claim of relief);
  4. violating the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act;
  5. false advertising under the Californian False Advertising Law; and
  6. unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices under the California Unfair Competition Law

Counts four to six will be limited to the Californian subclass.

If approved, Burgess’ class-action seeks

  • disgorgement by Paparazzi of “ill-gotten profits they received from the sale of products, or order to make full restitution
  • an injunction prohibiting the alleged illegal conduct; and
  • a recall of Paparazzi products.

BehindMLM is currently aware of four similar class-actions filed against Paparazzi in the past few months:

  1. the Hollins Complaint (New York)
  2. the Johnson Complaint (originally filed in North Carolina, moved to Utah)
  3. the Teske Complaint (Utah) and
  4. the Gilbert Complaint (Michigan, BehindMLM coverage pending)

While it’s looking like the other four cases will be transferred to Utah and then consolidated, Burgess’ lawsuit contains specific Californian law allegations.

I’m not sure whether that’s enough to keep the lawsuit in California and/or prevent consolidation given common allegations between the complaints.

Stay tuned for updates as we continue to monitor the case docket.

 

Update 18th August 2022 – On July 28th Paparazzi filed a motion seeking to move Burgess’ lawsuit to Utah.

The court has scheduled a hearing on the motion for September 19th.

 

Update 2nd September 2022 – On August 22nd Class Plaintiff Burgess filed a Notice of Non-Opposition, with respect to Paparazzi’s request to transfer her case to Utah.

This prompted to the court to vacate the scheduled September 19th hearing, and grant Paparazzi’s transfer motion on August 23rd.

Burgess’ class-action has now been transferred to Utah and given a new case number, which I’ll continue to track.

 

Update 14th April 2023 – Plaintiff Burgess filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal on March 27th. The court closed her case later the same day.

Such that Paparazzi reached a settlement with Burgess, this has not been publicly disclosed.