Author Avatar



Share post:

In California, Irene Burgess is the plaintiff in a lawsuit brought against the paparazzi.

On June 2nd, a proposed class action against Burgess was filed. Alleged false statements regarding the presence of hazardous metals in Paparazzi jewelry are at the heart of the complaint.

The only defendant in Burgess’ complaint is the paparazzi.

as stated in Burgess’ lawsuit;

The defendant allegedly developed, sourced, and marketed jewelry that allegedly included measurable quantities of lead and nickel, among other heavy metals, despite prior statements and express warranties indicating that its items are “lead-free and nickel-free.”

On its website, the defendant withdrew the “lead-free and nickel-free” claims between November 20, 2021, and January 9, 2022.

Contrary to the claims made on the defendant’s website, the Products contain lead and nickel, which Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes were unaware of and which, had they been informed before purchase, would have prevented Plaintiff and members of the proposed Classes from purchasing or using the Products.

The Products’ labeling is therefore false and misleading. Both the common law and pertinent state and federal legislation are cited in the claims made by the plaintiff and the participants in the proposed Classes, as outlined below.

Burgess wants to stand out for other Paparazzi Consultants who were duped, both nationally and specifically in California.

Burgess accuses Paparazzi on six counts of

irresponsible misrepresentation;

falsified representations;

the compensation requested in the form of reparation;

the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act being broken;

the California Deceptive Advertising Law defines false advertising; and

the California Unfair Competition Law, prohibits unfair, deceptive, or unethical commercial activities

The Californian subclass will only be included in counts four through six.

Burgess’ class-action lawsuit asks for

Paparazzi must return any “ill-gotten income” they made from selling items, or they must pay full reparations.

an order barring the claimed unlawful behavior; and

a product recall for Paparazzi.

Currently, BehindMLM is aware of four comparable class actions brought against Paparazzi in recent months:

the complaint of Hollins (New York)

a complaint made by Johnson (originally filed in North Carolina, moved to Utah)

the Utah Teske Complaint and

a complaint made by Gilbert (Michigan, BehindMLM coverage pending)

Although it appears that the other four lawsuits will be moved to Utah and later merged, Burgess’ lawsuit makes specific claims about Californian law.

Given that there are similar charges in each case, I’m not sure if it will be enough to maintain the action in California and/or prevent consolidation.

As we continue to follow the case docket, be sure to check back for developments.

Real Rise Academy Review - Is a Fraud
The EmpiresX Review - Is a Fraud

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *