Nail Polish & Cosmetic Products

Nail Polish & Cosmetic Products

Due to routine and frequent use by consumers, our clients pay close attention when harmful chemicals are present in ordinary cosmetic and beauty products. The Chanler Group’s clients have successfully resolved many Proposition 65 enforcement actions brought against cosmetics and beauty salon industry members, as well as against chemical suppliers of those companies.

Our clients’ investigations have revealed high levels of a number of toxic chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm, including toluene, lead, and phthalate chemicals used as plasticizers in the vinyl/PVC manufacturing process. In negotiating settlements on behalf of our clients, The Chanler Group’s attorneys have obtained commitments from industry members to remove these listed chemicals from a variety of products, including nail polish and enamel, eye shadow, eyeliner, lipstick, and cosmetic and toiletry cases.

Toluene is the second-highest volume ingredient in many nail polishes, as it allows polish to remain fluid and to spread evenly at varying temperatures. Toluene, however, is listed by the State of California as a chemical that is known to cause reproductive harm or birth defects. Individuals using toluene-containing polishes or enamels are exposed to the chemical by inhalation while applying the product.

During 1993 and 1994, investigations conducted on behalf of The Chanler Group’s clients revealed significant levels of toluene in nail polish sold without a warning in California. A nonprofit public-interest group represented by the founder of our firm filed 45 private Proposition 65 enforcement actions naming major cosmetics manufacturers and retailers as defendants. The industry resisted and filed a SLAPP action (strategic lawsuit against public participation) in federal court in an effort to silence the private enforcer’s claims and allegations. Through tenacious litigation our attorneys obtained a dismissal of the industry’s suit and prevailed in state court, successfully enjoining the industry members from further unwarned sales in California. Ultimately, The Chanler Group obtained a commitment from 43 of the defendant manufacturers, including some of the biggest names in the industry, to completely remove toluene from their nail enamel and polish products.  The success extended beyond California, as the mostly-national companies undertook to reformulate all of their products sold nationwide. Today, the industry uses “toluene-free” to market many of its nail products.

Other successful enforcement actions brought by our clients and resolved in the public interest include cases of lead in eyeliner, eyeshadow, and other makeup products and vinyl makeup kits and toiletry cases containing lead and DEHP.  Today, our clients continue their efforts to protect the health and safety of California consumers by investigating cosmetic products for lead, toluene, and phthalates. 

To review legal agreements which our clients have reached with companies that sell nail polish and other cosmetic products, please see the cases below.

firm casework - enforcement

January 13, 2009
Lead
Consent Judgment
On January 13, 2009, the Contra Costa County Superior Court entered a Consent Judgment in Leeman v. Shims Bargain, Inc., which resolved citizen enforcer Whitney R. Leeman, Ph.D.'s allegations that the defendant Shims Bargain, Inc. ("Shims") sold cosmetic kits containing a combination of eyeshadow and/or blush containing the heavy metal lead on the exterior...
April 29, 2008
Lead
Consent Judgment
On April 29, 2008, the Alameda County Superior Court entered a Consent Judgment in Leeman v. Imperial Toy Corp., et al., which resolved citizen enforcer Whitney R. Leeman, Ph.D.'s allegations that the defendants Imperial Toy Corporation and Imperial Toy LLC (collectively "Imperial Toy") sold cosmetic kits containing a combination of eye shadow, blush, and/or...
April 29, 2008
Lead
Consent Judgment
On April 29, 2008, the Alameda County Superior Court entered a Consent Judgment in Leeman v. Rich On, Inc., et al., which resolved citizen enforcer Whitney R. Leeman, Ph.D.'s allegations that the defendant Rich On, Inc. ("Rich On") sold cosmetic kits containing the heavy metal lead in the State of California without providing the requisite health hazard...
January 16, 2008
Lead
Consent Judgment
The Honorable Lawrence John Appel of the Alameda County Superior Court entered a Consent Judgment in the case of Leeman v. Perfumania, Inc., et al., on January 16, 2008. In this matter whistleblower Whitney R. Leeman, Ph.D., alleged that Perfumania, Inc. ("Perfumania") sold cosmetic kits containing the heavy metal lead in the State of California without...
January 10, 2008
Lead
Consent Judgment
The Honorable Ronni MacLaren of the Alameda County Superior Court entered a Revised Consent Judgment in Leeman v. Ross Stores, Inc., et al., on January 10, 2008. In this matter, citizen enforcer Whitney R. Leeman, Ph.D., alleged that Ross Stores, Inc. ("Ross") sold cosmetic kits containing the heavy metal lead in the State of California without providing the...
May 15, 2003
Lead
Consent Judgment
The Alameda County Superior Court entered a Consent Judgment in DiPirro v. Markwins International on May 15, 2003. This enforcement action resolved citizen enforcer Michael DiPirro's allegations that defendant Markwins International sold eye shadows, blushes, lipsticks, lip liners, and cosmetic kits containing the heavy metal lead in the State of California without...
January 24, 2000
Out-Of-Court Settlement
Citizen enforcer Michael DiPirro entered into an out-of-court Settlement Agreement on January 24, 2000 with Nobara, Inc., Shu Uemura Cosmetics, Inc.,  and Japanese corporations d/b/a Shu Uemura Beauty Boutique (collectively referred to as “Shu Uemura”).  This Agreement was later brought before the San Francisco County Superior Court for approval on...
December 2, 1998
Consent Judgment
On December 2, 1998, the San Francisco Superior Court entered a Stipulation for Entry of Judgment in the matter of As You Sow v. Blue Cross Beauty Products, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-98-995877. The Consent Judgment resolved AYS's claim that Blue Cross Beauty Products, Inc. sold numerous beauty and cosmetic products containing the Proposition 65-listed chemicals...