Case 4:21-cv-05859-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/30/21 Page 1 of 40
`
`
`
`TREVOR B. ROCKSTAD, SBN. 277274
`Davis & Crump, PC
`2601 14th Street
`Gulfport, MS 39501
`Telephone: (228) 863-6000
`Facsimile (228) 864-0907
`
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.: 4:21-cv-05859
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`KENNETH WILKERSON
`
`
`
`
`COMBE INCORPORATED; COMBE
`PRODUCTS, INC.; COMBE
`LABORATORIES, INC.;
`COMBE INTERNATIONAL LLC
`f/k/a COMBE INTERNATIONAL LTD; and
`WALGREEN CO.;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff, Kenneth Wilkerson, by and through his undersigned counsel, brings this action
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`against Defendants Combe Incorporated, Combe Products, Inc., Combe Laboratories, Inc.,
`
`Combe International, LLC, and Walgreen Co. and allege as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for damages suffered by Plaintiff Kenneth Wilkerson, an
`
`African American man, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ negligent and
`
`wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
`
`promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the hair care products and hair dyes
`1
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-05859-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/30/21 Page 2 of 40
`
`
`
`known as Just For Men® and/or other Just For Men® branded products herein collectively
`
`referred to as Just For Men®.
`
`2.
`
`As set forth herein, Defendants knew that Just For Men® hair care products cause
`
`a disproportionately high rate of adverse events in African American men. Despite this
`
`knowledge, Defendants aggressively targeted the African American community in their
`
`marketing and advertising.
`
`3.
`
`As a result of his Just For Men® use, Plaintiff Kenneth Wilkerson has been left
`
`with severe and permanent facial and scalp injuries:
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Just For Men® hair care products and dyes are manufactured and/or sold by
`
`Combe Incorporated, Combe Products, Inc., Combe Laboratories, Inc., and/or Combe
`
`International LLC (formerly known as Combe International LTD).
`
`5.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Just For Men® was designed, developed,
`
`manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, distributed, labeled, and/or sold by
`
`Defendants Combe Incorporated, Combe Products, Inc., Combe Laboratories, Inc., and/or
`
`Combe International LLC.
`
`6.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Walgreen Co. promoted, marketed and/or
`2
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-05859-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/30/21 Page 3 of 40
`
`
`
`sold Just For Men® products.
`
`PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`The Plaintiff, Kenneth Wilkerson, is and was at all times relevant hereto, a
`
`resident of Contra Costa County, California. He purchased Just For Men® at Walgreens stores in
`
`El Sobrante and Pinole, California.
`
`8.
`
`Defendants marketed, promoted, and/or sold Just For Men® hair care products
`
`and dyes throughout the United States and the State of California.
`
`9.
`
`The amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the
`
`jurisdictional minimum of this Court.
`
`10.
`
`This court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants pursuant to and
`
`consistent with California’s long arm statute (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10) and the
`
`Constitutional requirements of Due Process in that the Defendants, acting through their agents or
`
`apparent agents, committed one or more of the following:
`
`a. The transaction of any business within the state;
`
`b. The making of any contract within the state;
`
`c. The commission of a tortious act within this state; and
`
`d. The ownership, use, or possession of any real estate situated within this state.
`
`11.
`
`Requiring Defendants to litigate these claims in California does not offend
`
`traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice and is permitted by the United States
`
`Constitution. Defendants derive substantial revenue from the sale of Just For Men® products
`
`within the State of California. All of Plaintiff’s claims arise in part from conduct Defendants
`
`purposely directed to California including but not limited to the sale and marketing of Just For
`
`Men®products.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant Combe Incorporated is a Delaware corporation which has its principal
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`3
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-05859-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/30/21 Page 4 of 40
`
`
`
`place of business at 1101 Westchester Ave., White Plains, New York 10604.
`
`13.
`
`At all times relevant hereto the Defendant Combe Incorporated was engaged in
`
`the business of designing, developing, manufacturing, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
`
`distributing, labeling, and/or selling Just For Men® hair care and dye products.
`
`14.
`
`Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant Combe Incorporated
`
`was present and doing business in the State of California.
`
`15.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant Combe Incorporated transacted, solicited, and
`
`conducted business in the State of California and derived substantial revenue from such business.
`
`16.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Combe Incorporated expected or should
`
`have expected that its acts would have consequences within the United States of America, and
`
`the State of California in particular.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant Combe Products, Inc. is a Delaware corporation which has its principal
`
`place of business at El Duque Industrial Park Carr. 971 Calle A, Naguabo, Puerto Rico 00718.
`
`18.
`
`At all times relevant hereto Defendant Combe Products, Inc. was engaged in the
`
`business of designing, developing, manufacturing, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
`
`distributing, labeling, and/or selling Just For Men® hair care and dye products.
`
`19.
`
`Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant Combe Products,
`
`Inc. was present and doing business in the State of California.
`
`20.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant Combe Products, Inc. transacted, solicited, and
`
`conducted business in the State of California and derived substantial revenue from such business.
`
`21.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Combe Products, Inc. expected or should
`
`have expected that its acts would have consequences within the United States of America, and
`
`the State of California in particular.
`
`22.
`
`Defendant Combe Laboratories, Inc. is an Illinois corporation which has its
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`4
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-05859-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/30/21 Page 5 of 40
`
`
`
`principal place of business at 200 Shellhouse Dr., Rantoul, Illinois 61866.
`
`23.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Combe Laboratories, Inc. was engaged in
`
`the business of designing, developing, manufacturing, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
`
`distributing, labeling, and/or selling Just For Men® hair care and dye products.
`
`24.
`
`Upon
`
`information and belief, Defendant Combe Laboratories, Inc. was
`
`specifically engaged in the business of product returns, packaging and repackaging, research,
`
`and product testing for Defendants’ Just for Men® hair care and dye products.
`
`25.
`
`Upon
`
`information and belief, at all relevant
`
`times, Defendant Combe
`
`Laboratories, Inc. was present and doing business in the State of California.
`
`26.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant Combe Laboratories, Inc. transacted, solicited,
`
`and conducted business in the State of California and derived substantial revenue from such
`
`business.
`
`27.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Combe Laboratories, Inc. expected or
`
`should have expected that its acts would have consequences within the United States of America,
`
`and the State of California in particular.
`
`28.
`
`Defendant Combe International LLC is a Delaware corporation which has its
`
`principal place of business at 1101 Westchester Ave., White Plains, New York 10604.
`
`29.
`
`At all times relevant hereto Defendant Combe International LLC was engaged in
`
`the business of designing, developing, manufacturing, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing,
`
`distributing, labeling, and/or selling Just For Men® hair care and dye products.
`
`30.
`
`Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant Combe International
`
`LLC was present and doing business in the State of California.
`
`31.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant Combe International LLC transacted, solicited,
`
`and conducted business in the State of California and derived substantial revenue from such
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`5
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-05859-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/30/21 Page 6 of 40
`
`
`
`business.
`
`32.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Combe International LLC expected or
`
`should have expected that its acts would have consequences within the United States of America,
`
`and the State of California in particular.
`
`33.
`
`Defendants Combe Incorporated, Combe Products, Inc., Combe Laboratories,
`
`Inc., and Combe International LLC shall herein be collectively referred to as “Combe
`
`Defendants.”
`
`34.
`
`Defendant Walgreen Co. is an Illinois corporation with a principal place of
`
`business in Deerfield, Illinois.
`
`35.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Walgreen Co. was engaged in the
`
`business of promoting, marketing, distributing, and/or selling Just For Men® hair care and dye
`
`products.
`
`36.
`
`Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, Defendant Walgreen Co. was
`
`present and doing business in the State of California.
`
`37.
`
`At all relevant times, Defendant Walgreen Co. transacted, solicited, and
`
`conducted business in the State of California and derived substantial revenue from such business.
`
`38.
`
`At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Walgreen Co. expected or should have
`
`expected that its acts would have consequences within the United States of America, and the
`
`State of California in particular.
`
`39.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants because the Defendants
`
`transact business and the wrongs complained of herein arose in California, and specifically in the
`
`Northern District of California.
`
`40.
`
`The amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interests and costs.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`6
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-05859-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/30/21 Page 7 of 40
`
`
`
`41.
`
`Defendants developed, designed, formulated, manufactured, packaged, labeled,
`
`advertised, marketed, instructed on and warned about, distributed and/or sold Just For Men® hair
`
`care and dye products since at least 1987.
`
`42.
`
`Just For Men® is a cosmetic hair care dye intended to improve appearance and
`
`alter hair and facial hair color.
`
`43.
`
`Even if used as directed, Defendants failed to adequately warn against the
`
`negative effects and risks associated with this product including, but not limited to, long term
`
`usage and the cumulative effects of long-term usage, all discussed elsewhere in this Complaint.
`
`44.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that Just For Men® products create an
`
`unnecessary risk of burns, scarring, allergic reactions, anaphylactic shock, skin depigmentation,
`
`and other severe injuries with use including, but not limited to, prolonged and cumulative usage.
`
`45.
`
`In omitting, concealing, and/or inadequately providing critical safety information
`
`regarding the use of Just For Men® in order to induce its purchase and use, Defendants engaged
`
`in and continue to engage in conduct likely to mislead consumers, including Plaintiff. This
`
`conduct is fraudulent, unfair, and unlawful.
`
`46.
`
`Defendants, knew or should have known that Just For Men® created an increased
`
`risk of injury and failed to disclose to consumers, including Plaintiff, the risk of injury, rates of
`
`adverse reaction, and other problems known to Defendants.
`
`47.
`
`Combe Defendants boast that Just For Men® products are backed by “three
`
`decades of research and have delivered great results over 50 million times” despite the
`
`knowledge that thousands of consumers a year are severely and permanently injured by their Just
`
`For Men® products. Further, this statement is inaccurate, misleading, and not supported by any
`
`scientific facts or knowledge.
`
`48.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that the chemicals in Just For Men®
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`7
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-05859-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/30/21 Page 8 of 40
`
`
`
`products, including but not limited to p-Phenylenediamine (herein “PPD”), are associated with
`
`health risks, yet Defendants did not adequately warn consumers, including Plaintiff.
`
`49.
`
`Just For Men® is permanent hair coloring which utilizes oxidation in the dying
`
`process.
`
`50.
`
`The EPA lists several links between PPD and several acute and chronic injuries,
`
`including but not limited to:
`
`a. Severe dermatitis;
`
`b. Renal failure;
`
`c. Acute Contact Dermatitis;
`
`d. Vitiligo;
`
`e. Convulsions and comas; and
`
`f. Eczematoid contact dermatitis.
`
`51.
`
`Defendants fail to warn about several of the conditions listed in the preceding
`
`paragraph. To the extent there is any warning as to the conditions listed above, that warning is
`
`inadequate and improperly downplays the substantial risk posed by the product.
`
`52.
`
`A 2006 article published in the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health
`
`found a link in at least one study between hair dyes and certain cancers including bladder cancer,
`
`non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and blood cancers such as myeloma and leukemia.
`
`53.
`
`In 2006, PPD was named allergen of the year by the American Contact Dermatitis
`
`Society.
`
`54.
`
`PPD is one of five substances listed as a “strong sensitizer” by the Consumer
`
`Product Safety Commission.
`
`55.
`
`As defined by 16 CFR 1500.13, “strong sensitizer” substances have a significant
`
`potential for causing hypersensitivity.
`
`8
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-05859-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/30/21 Page 9 of 40
`
`
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`Throughout Europe PPD is widely known as an “extreme sensitizer.”
`
`Combe Defendants place no restrictions concerning cumulative or repeated use of
`
`their products or PPD on their packaging despite the known risks of repeated exposure to their
`
`products and PPD.
`
`58.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that in excess of 5% of the population
`
`will have an adverse reaction to PPD, yet Defendants ignored, concealed and/or withheld this
`
`information from the public.
`
`59.
`
`PPD has been linked to severe and sudden allergic reactions, including serious
`
`skin irritation, anaphylaxis and even death.
`
`60.
`
`Combe Defendants do not properly warn consumers on their product labels,
`
`inserts, or marketing materials that PPD in Just For Men® products can cause anaphylaxis and
`
`death.
`
`61.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known about the increased risk created by
`
`cumulative use, but Defendants failed to instruct or warn to the public regarding such use or the
`
`number of times a person could use Just For Men® products safely.
`
`62.
`
`Although Combe Defendants instruct users to conduct a preliminary test to help
`
`determine whether a user will have an adverse reaction to its product, the preliminary test
`
`recommend and the directions and instructions for its administration are inadequate.
`
`63.
`
`Combe Defendants recommend a self-applied “skin patch test” on a consumer’s
`
`arm prior to use. Combe Defendants recommend this test despite knowing that facial skin is
`
`more sensitive and may react differently than the arm or other parts of the body. Combe
`
`Defendants provide no guidelines on how to test their Just For Men® products on a consumer’s
`
`face prior to use.
`
`64.
`
`The skin patch test is designed to detect allergic reactions (itching, irritation,
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`9
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-05859-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/30/21 Page 10 of 40
`
`
`
`burning, redness, swelling or eruptions) to the Just For Men® product. Importantly, it is not
`
`designed to detect if a user will suffer from skin discoloration or vitiligo from either isolated or
`
`repeated use.
`
`65.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that the skin patch test is an inadequate
`
`method to determine if a user will have an allergic reaction to PPD.
`
`66.
`
`The universal standard for identifying skin allergies, including acute contact
`
`dermatitis to PPD, is the patch test which is administered and monitored by a dermatologist or
`
`similar trained medical professional over 7-10 days.
`
`67.
`
`During a patch test, a trained medical professional places a small quantity of
`
`known allergens on the patient’s back. The test areas are then covered with special
`
`hypoallergenic adhesive tape so the patches stay in place undisturbed for 48 hours.
`
`68.
`
`Generally, a patch test administered by a medical professional requires two to
`
`three appointments so that the reactions can be carefully monitored by the dermatologist.
`
`69.
`
`Despite the knowledge that more accurate patch tests conducted by trained
`
`medical professionals are done over the course of several days or even weeks, Defendants
`
`wrongly and negligently fail to advise Just For Men ® consumers of the benefits of having a
`
`patch test done by a medical professional.
`
`70.
`
`In December 2007, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer
`
`Products released an Opinion titled “Sensitivity to Hair Dyes – Consumer Self Testing.” The
`
`Committee concluded that at home skin tests, given for the purpose of providing an indication as
`
`to whether an individual consumer may or may not have a contact allergy to hair dye chemicals,
`
`were unreliable. The committee specifically found that:
`
`a. Self-Testing
`
`leads
`
`to misleading and false-negative results,
`
`thus giving
`
`individuals who are allergic to hair dye substances the false impression that they
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`10
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-05859-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/30/21 Page 11 of 40
`
`
`
`are not allergic and not at risk of developing an allergic reaction by dyeing their
`
`hair;
`
`b. There is a potential risk that “self-tests” result in induction of skin sensitization to
`
`hair dye substances;
`
`c. The self-test recommendations were not standardized and uncontrolled, allowing
`
`for large variations in dose, number of applications, and duration of exposure;
`
`d. False negative results from self-testing are considered to be the largest problem;
`
`e. 48 hours is known to be too short as patch test reactions may develop up to seven
`
`days after application;
`
`f. Self-test locations on the arm or behind the ear are not reliable, while patch
`
`testing done on the back is good for reproducibility; and
`
`g. Self-tests are not performed or observed by trained observers.
`
`71.
`
`Defendants do not warn or disclose that self-testing, such as the test
`
`recommended by Combe Defendants, is not as effective or reliable as a doctor performed test as
`
`described elsewhere in this Complaint.
`
`72.
`
`Nowhere on product packaging or inserts, webpage, advertisements, store
`
`displays and/or marketing materials do Defendants recommend that consumers undergo a patch
`
`test with a dermatologist before using Just For Men® products.
`
`73.
`
`Combe Defendants advise that a consumer “not wash, cover, or disturb the test
`
`area for 48 hours.” The burden to comply with this version of an allergy test is too high and
`
`essentially unfeasible. The risk of accidental contamination renders the “test” useless.
`
`74.
`
`For example, during this version of an allergy test, for two days, Consumers are
`
`unrealistically expected to:
`
`a. Not shower;
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-05859-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/30/21 Page 12 of 40
`
`
`
`b. Not wear long sleeve shirts;
`
`c. Not accidently rub against anything;
`
`d. Not sweat; and
`
`e. Not close the elbow.
`
`75.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that a percentage of consumers would
`
`have an allergic reaction to Just For Men ® products but fail to advise consumers to undergo
`
`proper allergy testing before using these products.
`
`76.
`
`Despite knowing that a certain percentage of the population would have an
`
`allergic reaction to Just For Men ® products, Defendants failed to warn and/or disclose such
`
`rates of reaction to consumers and the public in general.
`
`77.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that the recommended skin patch test is
`
`inadequate to accurately identify potential reactions to Just For Men ® products.
`
`78.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that the test was not adequate because:
`
`a. The instructions and directions for use did not disclose that the at-home test was
`
`not a substitute for a patch test administered or monitored by a trained medical
`
`professional and that more accurate results could be obtained by a test
`
`administered by a trained medical professional;
`
`b. The risk that the test would be performed in the wrong area;
`
`c. The risk that the amount of product used would be wrong;
`
`d. The arm is not the appropriate location for a skin allergy test;
`
`e. The risk of false negatives or false positives is high;
`
`f. The area that is tested is not covered or protected during the test; and
`
`g. The risk that the product would be disturbed by clothing or daily activities is high.
`
`79.
`
`Consumers, including Plaintiff, detrimentally relied on the patch test.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`12
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-05859-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/30/21 Page 13 of 40
`
`
`
`80.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that it is highly unlikely that a consumer
`
`would be able to perform the patch test properly and obtain reliable results.
`
`81.
`
`In addition, Defendants knew or should have known that sensitization to PPD
`
`during a skin patch test is likely to occur in a certain percentage of the population.
`
`82. When sensitization occurs during a patch test, the consumer will have a late
`
`reaction to the PPD more than 48 hours, or not at all, after exposure, rendering the testing
`
`procedure useless.
`
`83.
`
`Due to sensitization during a patch test, it is possible for consumers to have a
`
`negative skin patch test result and still have a severe reaction to Just For Men ® products.
`
`84.
`
`Despite this, Defendants do not warn or disclose the risks of sensitization during a
`
`skin patch test.
`
`85.
`
`Combe Defendants provide inadequate instructions on how to combine the Color
`
`Base and Color Developer before application. Combe Defendants use ambiguous words such as
`
`“small” and “equal” parts but provide no tools or methods to measure the actual amount of each
`
`chemical or to ensure that equal amounts are being applied.
`
`86.
`
`Combe Defendants provide no instructions on what is meant by a “small” amount
`
`of chemicals, leaving the consumer to guess at the proper testing procedure.
`
`87. Without precise measuring tools, it is impossible to determine if “equal” amounts
`
`of each chemical are being mixed for application.
`
`88.
`
`Even if the product’s patch test was adequate and reliable, which it is not, the
`
`vague, ambiguous, and inadequate instructions for its use render the test inadequate at best and
`
`useless at worst.
`
`89.
`
`Defendants fail to warn or disclose the probability that a user will have an adverse
`
`reaction to Just For Men® products.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`13
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-05859-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/30/21 Page 14 of 40
`
`
`
`90.
`
`Defendants fail to warn about the possibility that Just For Men® use will result in
`
`permanent disfigurement, an important fact that a consumer would consider before purchasing
`
`the product.
`
`91.
`
`Defendants spend millions of dollars to advertise nationally via television and
`
`internet, but do not warn about any adverse reactions on their respective websites or
`
`commercials.
`
`92.
`
`Combe Defendants do not have any information about adverse reactions or any
`
`warning or precautions in their FAQ section on their website. In fact, their website is completely
`
`devoid of safety information or information related to adverse reactions regarding Just For Men®
`
`products.
`
`93.
`
`There are safer alternatives to PPD available for use in Just For Men® products.
`
`However, despite the known risks of PPD, Combe Defendants continue to use PPD in their
`
`products.
`
`94.
`
`Safer known alternatives include but are not limited to:
`
`a. Henna based hair dyes;
`
`b. Para-toluenediamine sulfate hair dyes; and
`
`c. Other semi-permanent dyes.
`
`95.
`
`These safer alternatives greatly decrease or even eliminate the risk of adverse
`
`reactions caused by PPD containing products as discussed in this Complaint. Furthermore, these
`
`alternative formulations also achieve the desired result of dying and/or coloring an individual’s
`
`hair.
`
`96.
`
`Defendants fail to warn about and/or disclose the true nature and extent of the risk
`
`of serious adverse reactions posed by Just For Men® products in the general population of users
`
`or consumers.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`14
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-05859-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/30/21 Page 15 of 40
`
`
`
`97.
`
`Defendants also fail to warn or disclose that the amount of PPD in Just For Men®
`
`increases with darker shades of the product. As such, the darkest shades of Just For Men® pose
`
`the greatest risk of adverse reaction. There is no warning that the risk of adverse reaction
`
`increases with darker shades.
`
`98.
`
`Further, Defendants fail to warn and/or disclose that African American consumers
`
`are at an even higher risk of an acute reaction to PPD than those of Caucasian descent.
`
`99.
`
`Indeed, in 2001 a study performed by the Cleveland Clinic concluded that the
`
`sensitization rate of PPD in African American users overall (men and women) was 10.6% versus
`
`4.5% in Caucasians. The study further concluded that the sensitization rate of PPD in African
`
`American men in particular was 21.2% compared to 4.2% in Caucasians.
`
`100.
`
`Just For Men® has an unacceptable and unreasonable rate of adverse reaction as
`
`to the general population, which is exacerbated in the African American male population.
`
`101. Despite knowing that African American men are five times as likely to experience
`
`an adverse reaction to PPD and that the darkest shades of Just For Men® posed the greatest risk
`
`of injury, Defendants aggressively targeted the African American community in their marketing
`
`and advertising.
`
`102.
`
`In addition, other scientific studies have found increased sensitization rates to
`
`predominately dark-haired populations, including 11.5% in India and 15.2% in Spain.
`
`103.
`
`In fact, PPD is now known as one of, if not the most, common allergens in the
`
`African American population, even rivaling nickel which is the leading cause of Allergic Contact
`
`Dermatitis (“ACD”) in the world.
`
`104. Defendants knew or should have known that consumers were at a greater risk of
`
`experiencing an adverse reaction while using PPD compared to other hair dye products, and
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that certain groups of consumers, including but not
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`15
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-05859-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/30/21 Page 16 of 40
`
`
`
`limited to African Americans, were at an even greater risk of experiencing an adverse reaction to
`
`PPD.
`
`105. Despite this knowledge, Defendants failed to warn and/or disclose to these
`
`consumers that they were exposed to a significantly increased risk of suffering an adverse
`
`reaction.
`
`106. Defendants also knew or should have known that there is a substantial likelihood
`
`of serious bodily injury when using Just For Men® because it contains PPD. However,
`
`Defendants failed to warn and/or disclose this to consumers.
`
`107.
`
`Instead, Defendants represented that Just For Men ® products are safe and
`
`effective when used as directed even though Defendants knew or should have known that the 48-
`
`hour allergy test is flawed and ineffective.
`
`108. Defendants also failed to warn and/or disclose to consumers and the public in
`
`general that African Americans are more than two times as likely to have a severe reaction to
`
`Just For Men ® products as other consumers, and that African-American men are four to five
`
`times more likely to have such a reaction.
`
`109. Combe Defendants’ warning label for Just For Men® inadequately addresses and
`
`warns of potential adverse health risk associated with the use of the product, as set forth in this
`
`Complaint. Even when such risks are mentioned, they are minimized and downplayed, further
`
`reducing the utility, if any, of the products’ warnings.
`
`110. Defendants actively marketed Just For Men® to consumers knowing that it would
`
`cause serious and severe reactions to consumers and/or failed to warn or disclose this fact to
`
`consumers.
`
`111. Combe Defendants have an internal claims process in place to obtain liability
`
`releases from consumers who are injured by Just For Men® products.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`16
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-05859-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/30/21 Page 17 of 40
`
`
`
`112. Combe Defendants’ claim process is structured to minimize any problems
`
`associated with Just For Men® products and prevent consumers who are injured from taking
`
`legal action.
`
`113. Plaintiff is unaware of a single clinical trial or study performed by Defendants
`
`related to the injury rate and/or safety of any Just For Men® products.
`
`114. Defendants have a duty to monitor the safety of Just For Men ® products and it is
`
`reasonable for them to conduct multiple clinical trials and/or studies related to the safety of Just
`
`For Men® products; however, they have failed to do so.
`
`115. Defendants knew or should have known of the high number of adverse reactions
`
`and injuries related to Just For Men® products from a multitude of sources, including but not
`
`limited to their respective internal claims process, making their failure to conduct any studies,
`
`clinical trials or the like particularly egregious.
`
`116. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Walgreen Co., as part of its business, sold
`
`Just For Men® products in its retail stores, including but not limited to stores located in El
`
`Sobrante and Pinole, California.
`
`117. Defendant Walgreen Co. knew or should have known of the high number of
`
`adverse reactions and injuries related to Just For Men® products from a multitude of sources,
`
`including but not limited to their internal claims process, product complaints, product refund
`
`requests, product reviews on their website and social media presence, and, upon information and
`
`belief, previous litigation and communication with Combe Defendants.
`
`118. Despite actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous nature of the Just For
`
`Men® products, Defendant Walgreen Co. readily stocked its shelves with the products, reaping
`
`substantial profits.
`
`119. Defendant Walgreen Co. further enabled the Combe Defendants to make
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`17
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-05859-DMR Document 1 Filed 07/30/21 Page 18 of 40
`
`
`
`representations concerning the quality of their products. Defendant Walgreen Co. adopted, and
`
`became responsible for, the representations made on Just For Men® packaging and warnings
`
`regarding the safety of the product when it decided to place the products on its store shelves and
`
`retail websites, and thereafter advertised and sold such products to consumers in general, and
`
`Plaintiff in particular.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S USE OF JUST FOR MEN
`
`120. Plaintiff, Kenneth Wilkerson, is and was at all times alleged herein a citizen of the
`
`State of