Author Avatar



Share post:

In Michigan, plaintiff Heather Gilbert has filed a lawsuit against the paparazzi.

On June 16th, Gilbert’s proposed class action was filed. Alleged false statements regarding the presence of hazardous metals in Paparazzi jewelry are at the heart of the complaint.

The only defendant listed in Gilbert’s case is the paparazzi.

as stated in Gilbert’s lawsuit;

Plaintiff filed this class action on behalf of herself and a group of others who bought jewelry from Paparazzi, including necklaces, bracelets, earrings, and other pieces. which Plaintiff’s testing has found to be lead and nickel-containing, in defiance of Paparazzi’s unambiguous assertions that its products were lead and nickel-free.

Plaintiff’s independent testing, as well as test results acquired from other customers, have shown that Paparazzi’s Products do contain large quantities of lead and nickel, in sharp contrast to Paparazzi’s extensive marketing of its Products as lead and nickel free.

Consumers, including Plaintiff and proposed Class Members, would not have purchased the Products at all or would not have paid the amount they did if Defendant Paparazzi had informed them that the Products included lead and nickel.

Plaintiff and proposed class members have been harmed, including financially, as a result of defendant Paparazzi’s wrongdoing, false claims, misrepresentations, and substantial omissions.

Numerous instances of Paparazzi’s “lead and nickel free” marketing promises are included in Gilbert’s lawsuit. Additionally, it asserts that because of “zealous governance,” Paparazzi had complete control over its marketing messaging.

Any personalized promotional material or advertising attempt must be approved by Paparazzi and its legal department to ensure that there are no claims or violations of the Paparazzi trademark, namesake, or other legal issues. Paparazzi regulates how its consultants market the Products with such zeal that Paparazzi institutes a pre-marketing review requirement.

Paparazzi thus exerts complete control over the marketing of the Products through a variety of means, including dictating the educational requirements for consultants, obligating consultants to reiterate Paparazzi’s marketing messages, showcasing the top consultants and their marketing approaches, and structuring their business so that hierarchical “teams” emerge with unified marketing claims.

In January, BehindMLM reported on the discovery that hazardous metals were present in the jewelry worn by paparazzi.

It’s interesting to note that Gilbert refers to the MLM business model of Paparazzi as a “pyramid of positions.” She says she bought Paparazzi merchandise between 2018 and 2020 but doesn’t say if she’s a Paparazzi Consultant.

Ms. Gilbert had a reasonable belief that Paparazzi’s products were devoid of lead and nickel-based on the company’s statements.

Ms. Gilbert bought Paparazzi’s Products because she was looking for inexpensive, lead- and nickel-free jewelry and accessories.

Ms. Gilbert explicitly relied on Paparazzi’s claims that its products were free of lead and nickel when she made her purchases.

Ms. Gilbert discovered that the products from Paparazzi were not lead and nickel free as claimed in early 2022.

Ms. Gilbert stopped buying and wearing Paparazzi’s products after finding out that they included lead and nickel.

When Ms. Gilbert bought Products from Paparazzi that did not match the company’s actual product claims, she did not get the best deal possible.

Ms. Gilbert would not have bought Paparazzi’s products if she had been aware of the false assertions, misrepresentations, and omissions regarding the materials used in the Products.

Gilbert requests to represent “any others similarly placed” if her class action is accepted. Alternatively put, Paparazzi’s clients (both Consultants and retail customers).

A national class and a subclass for Michigan will be created.

In Gilbert’s Complaint, specific charges were brought against Paparazzi, including:

Breach of express and implied warranties, Michigan Consumer Protection Act violations, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of Michigan’s explicit and implied warranty statutes, as well as other offenses

Six and seven are specifically applicable to the Michigan subclass.

Gilbert’s class-action suit would seek to:

damages, a stop order for the suspected illegal activity, court fees

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

the complaint of Hollins (New York)

the Burgess Complaint, the Teske Complaint, and the Johnson Complaint (originally filed in North Carolina but transferred to Utah) (California)

I anticipate that the five proposed class actions will eventually be combined. The North Carolina case being transferred to Utah by Paparazzi looks to be where this has already begun (where the company is situated).

Since the California lawsuit involves some quite precise counts of action, moving it might be problematic.

As we continue to keep an eye on the case dockets, check back for updates.

Infinity2Global Review Part 2 - Is a Fraud
Investview Review Part 3 - Is a Fraud

Leave a Comment

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