Devout Jewish woman sues Lancôme over beauty product that fails the Sabbath test
NEW YORKER Rorie Weisberg forked out $45.00 for a one-ounce a bottle of facial gunk that promised a full night and day of “lasting perfection”.
The Orthodox Jewish woman did so because she wanted something that would last her through the Sabbath. The product had to be long- lasting because it is verboten for observant Jews to apply make-up between sundown on a Friday and Saturday night.
Lancôme’s new Teint Idole Ultra 24H foundation held out the promise of a full 24 hours of beauty enhancement, but apparently failed to deliver. So, according to this report, Weisberg “can’t look good and stay holy at the same time”, and she’s suing the make-up giant.
Her suit states:
The 24-hour claim was central to plaintiff’s purchase decision, as a long-lasting makeup assists with her dual objectives of compliance with religious law and enhancement to her natural appearance.
Court papers say Weisberg:
Is an Orthodox Jew and abides by Jewish law by not applying makeup from sundown on Friday until nighttime on Saturday. This means the makeup would have been crucial to helping her keep Jewish law, especially at major family occasions.
Specifically, plaintiff’s eldest son is having his bar mitzvah celebration in June and plaintiff was looking for a long-lasting foundation that would achieve the foregoing dual objectives over the bar mitzvah Sabbath.
The suit alleged that the pricey product “faded significantly” overnight.
The Manhattan federal-court filing accuses Lancôme of violating New York business law through “deceptive acts and practices.”
The suit seeks unspecified damages from Lancôme and parent company L’Oréal on behalf of Weisberg and everyone else who bought the flesh-coloured foundation, as well as a “corrective advertising campaign.”
A spokeswoman for L’Oreal said in a statement:
Lancôme strongly believes that this lawsuit has no merit and stands proudly behind our products. We will strenuously contest these allegations in court. Consistent with our practice and policy, however, as this matter is currently in litigation, we cannot comment further.
Hat tip: BarrieJohn