Anti-Aging Claims Land Estee Lauder in Hot Water

Estee Lauder makes its money by telling people that they could look better. It’s not the only company to do so and, for the most part, its products seem to do what they say. But that hasn’t stopped a New York judge from allowing a new lawsuit filed by a frustrated customer to continue.

The suit involves Estee Lauder’s Advanced Night Repair formula and its anti-aging properties – or rather, the lack thereof. Donna Tomasino, the plaintiff in the case, alleges that Estee Lauder sold the product without proving its supposed “anti-aging” benefits were real and is suing the company for breach of contract (the “contract” here being the marketing materials used by Estee Lauder). The case was originally dismissed in August 2014 after a judge found that Tomasino lacked standing to pursue her lawsuit and failed to show any actual harm. He also noted that she failed to provide specifics as to why exactly the company’s claims were false. Well, now she’s back, citing five different studies supporting her claims that Estee Lauder’s formula cannot restore DNA or neutralize the effects of the sun or smoking as the company advertises.

Seeking a second dismissal, Estee Lauder hoped that its success in August would count for something – but, ruling against the company, Judge Korma found that Tomasino could proceed with her amended claims. The new complaint includes detailed explanations of the biology of human skin, along with explanations of how ingredients in the Advanced Night Repair formula could not possibly do what the company says. The case will now be heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

This isn’t the first time Estee Lauder’s found itself in court for promising to turn back the clock. In January 2013, consumers sued the company in New Jersey over its Clinique-brand products, arguing that the company used false advertising and misleading scientific references to prey on consumers’ “prima fears” of aging and their “eternal hope that products exist [to] eliminate the signs of aging.” In that case, plaintiffs pointed out that if Estee Lauder’s products really can “rebuild stores of natural collagen” and “empower skin to defy gravity,” then the skin cream would need to be regulated by the FDA as a drug (and a miraculous one at that, it should be said). The use of “before and after” models in Estee Lauder’s advertisements was also criticized by the suit because the company failed to include disclaimers and allegedly used Photoshop on the images.

In a separate case filed in 2012, two Estee Lauder customers told a California federal court that the company’s anti-aging serum Plantscription was sold alongside doctored photos of a supermodel who admitted she had never used the actual product. In a fun twist, the supermodel, Caroline Forsling, also sued the company for allegedly violating her privacy by using images taken during a test shoot for a different product. Plaintiffs claimed they had only bought the serum because Forsling starred in the advertisements.

Consumers should note that the FDA does have guidelines for wrinkle treatments and other anti-aging products, which state that:

“Products intended to make people more attractive are generally cosmetics [...] But, products intended to affect the structure or function of the body, such as the skin, are drugs, or sometimes medical devices, even if they affect the appearance. So, if a product is intended, for example, to remove wrinkles or increase the skin’s production of collagen, it’s a drug or a medical device.”

Cosmetics are required by law to be safe to use as instructed and do not require FDA approval. This allows for a good rule of thumb: if you can buy a product off the shelf without any age restrictions or warnings, it’s probably a cosmetic – and thus unlikely to actually contain any skin-changing properties. The FDA keeps an up-to-date list of companies that have received “warning letters” for selling products that make questionable claims. As well as anti-aging claims, companies have been called out for making statements about acne treatment, stretch mark reduction, and even eyelash growth.

Companies will always want to provide the next miracle cure. It’s worth being wary any claims that seem too good to be true. A few wrinkles might seem bad, but a few wrinkles and an ineffective tub of $60 moisturizer has to be a whole lot worse.