Author Avatar



Share post:

A potential class-action lawsuit against Paparazzi has been launched by the plaintiffs Lori Teske and Terri Franklin.

On June 6th, the Teske Complaint was submitted to Utah.

Paparazzi allegedly “peddle(d) low-cost jewelry and accessory goods lace(d) with excessive quantities of harmful pollutants,” according to the Class Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs contend that this was done based on Paparazzi’s allegation that their products were

“lead and nickel free” and compliant with state laws that restrict the inclusion of harmful pollutants in consumer goods.

Plaintiffs, who were both Paparazzi Consultants, assert that they were taken advantage of.

Nothing is more false than it is.

Paparazzi’s Consultants are unaware of the shockingly high concentrations of lead, nickel, cadmium, and/or other dangerous metals present in Paparazzi’s jewelry.

The discovery of dangerous metals in Paparazzi’s jewelry broke earlier this year as a result of a lab study Crack the Crown had ordered.

Consultants make significant financial investments to increase their stock of Paparazzi costume jewelry at Paparazzi’s urging.

Paparazzi promoted their goods as lead- and nickel-free to Consultants and customers as recently as November 2021.

In addition, as recently as December 2021, Paparazzi claimed that its goods complied with California’s Proposition 65, which, as will be explained below, mandates disclosures if certain amounts of several dangerous substances—such as lead, nickel, and cadmium—meet or exceed a threshold value.

In actuality, as scientific testing has now established, Paparazzi’s goods do not contain any lead, nickel, or other toxic metals.

They frequently include significant amounts of lead, nickel, and other toxic metals like cadmium that are dangerous to human health, and in some cases startlingly high and possibly toxic ones.

Paparazzi has coerced its Consultants, such as the Plaintiffs and Class Members, into buying a sizable amount of jewelry from them to resell to its customers.

Paparazzi jewelry not only falls short of the quality and safety claims Paparazzi made about its products, but it also puts the health and safety of Consultants and their clients in danger.

These transactions have generated enormous revenues for Paparazzi, while Consultants are stuck with useless, sometimes hazardous items.

Plaintiffs and members of the Class are bringing this lawsuit to obtain monetary compensation for the losses that Paparazzi caused by making false claims regarding the make-up, caliber, and safety of its products.

In October 2020, plaintiff Teske began working for Paparazzi. She asserts that she purchased Paparazzi jewelry for more than $18,000 and that she was able to recoup “roughly $5000” of that cost.

Teske decided to quit selling the costume jewelry she had purchased from Paparazzi after discovering, in late 2021, that it was not as described and may even be harmful.

She doesn’t want to offer hazardous things to anyone and is against anything that might lead to kids getting their hands on harmful items.

She has wrapped her Paparazzi jewelry that has not yet been sold at her house. Even now, she is unsure of how or even if she can securely dispose of it.

In June 2019, Plaintiff Franklin signed up with Paparazzi. Franklin says she still had $13,500 in unsold products as of October 2021, but she doesn’t say how much she spent on Paparazzi.

Ms. Franklin discovered that the jewelry worn by the paparazzi may be poisonous in October 2021.

Ms. Franklin ceased selling Paparazzi jewelry because she didn’t want to be associated with the sale of unsafe items to anyone.

Ms. Franklin has about $13,500 worth of Paparazzi jewelry inventory that is still unsold, costing around $2.75 each piece.

Ms. Franklin makes an effort to store her remaining stuff as far away from her grandson’s bedroom as she can, whether it be in her basement, a storage shed, or a closet.

Ms. Franklin attempted to get in touch with Paparazzi to sell them her unsold stock but got no answer.

The co-founders of Paparazzi LLC, as well as Misty Kirby, Trent Kirby, Chantel Reeve, and Ryan Reeve, are named defendants in the proposed class action.

Paparazzi withdrew the claim from its marketing and released the following statement in reaction to the revelation that its goods were not nickel and lead-free:

Paparazzi jewelry complies with all relevant consumer safety laws and rules in the US.

Iron and various traces of other minerals are the main metals used in Paparazzi Accessories products.

These trace minerals are composed of aluminum, steel, or zinc-based metallic alloy.

Paparazzi uses labs approved by the US Consumer Products Safety Commission to test their jewelry for questionable ingredients before it is marketed.

To comply with California’s Proposition 65, paparazzi jewelry must be tested for all heavy metals, including lead, nickel, and cadmium as well as phthalates.

One of the strictest consumer rules in the US is California’s Proposition 65, and Paparazzi’s jewelry conforms to it.

According to the plaintiff, they sent 40 pieces of Paparazzi jewelry to the University of Utah for analysis.

Nickel was detected in every sample. The claims made by Paparazzi on the contrary are blatantly false.

One sample had a nickel content of more than 4400 mg/kg.

Likewise, lead was detected in every sample. The claims made by Paparazzi on the contrary are blatantly false.

One sample had a lead content of more than 29,000 mg per kilogram. In other words, lead made up around 3% of the entire sample.

And cadmium was detected in every sample. One sample had a cadmium content of more than 961,000 milligrams per kilogram.

In other words, 96 percent of the sample—or almost the whole sample—was made entirely of cadmium. Other samples were found to be more than 60% pure cadmium.

Additionally, 16 pieces of jewelry belonging to Paparazzi that were still in the hands of plaintiff Terri Franklin were tested at the University of Utah.

Each sample came back with positive results for lead and nickel. The claims made by Paparazzi on the contrary are blatantly false.

And cadmium was detected in every sample. One sample had a cadmium content of more than 735,000 milligrams per kilogram.

That is to say, nearly two-thirds of the sample as a whole, or around 73.5 percent, was made up entirely of cadmium. Other samples were found to be more than 55% pure cadmium.

The Department of Toxic Substances in California forbids the sale of goods containing more than 0.03 percent of cadmium by weight.

A 500 PPM limit for lead has also been established by the California Health and Safety Code.

Paparazzi Consultants who have “the same interests” are the focus of the class action lawsuits.

As consultants, Plaintiffs and every member of the proposed class sold Paparazzi’s accessories that Defendants misrepresented as being lead- and nickel-free.

Defendants’ actions in promoting Paparazzi’s accessories as lead- and nickel-free and in selling accessories that contained Toxic Metals gave rise to all of the claims made by Plaintiffs and prospective Class members.

The following specific claims are made against Paparazzi in the contemplated class action:

breaches of the Lanham Act, implied warranties, contract violations, and violations of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing In addition to financial support for a “national corrective advertising campaign,” an injunction against Paparazzi, the disposal of contaminated items, lost profit value on unsold goods, damages, and legal fees are the main demands of the plaintiffs.

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

the complaint of Hollins (New York)

the Gilbert Complaint, the Burgess Complaint (California, BehindMLM coverage pending), and the Johnson Complaint (initially filed in North Carolina, relocated to Utah) (Michigan, BehindMLM coverage pending)

Because the Paparazzi was able to shift at least one complaint to Utah, I believe the others will eventually do the same, barring any unforeseen circumstances.

As the cases develop, consolidation is probably something we’ll be looking at. Keep checking for updates.

The EmpiresX Review - Is a Fraud
EasyTask 888 Review Part 2 - Is a Fraud

Leave a Comment

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