Just wanted to say that "patented" only means they applied for & were granted the exclusive rights to use the formula for a period of time. They had to prove it was unique or novel in some way, & that will give them exclusive rights to the formulation for a period of time. It is probably why he keeps changing the formula...at some point, the patent protection will expire on the original & others will be able to reverse engineer & produce it without paying him for that right. New variations/improvements might give him new patents to extend the protection for other formulations in the line. But patented doesn't mean proof that it works or is safe.
Venezia is right - this is a case about causation. People will need to prove that something specific caused the harm to them. I haven't looked at the case, but the liability standard is relevant - I'm not sure if this is a negligence claim (meaning that if they can show causation, they also would have to show that Chaz Dean knew or should have known that the ingredient would cause harm). Strict liability holds the maker responsible for all harm, regardless of intent or level of care...but there are fewer valid ways to make a strict liability claim.
If it is shown that these were individualized reactions to something like fragrance or nuts, & if they used the same standard of care for using these ingredients (like disclosing, or using products common in a variety of products), then it would be really hard to establish negligence even if they can prove cause.
Example: I have an allergy to a tree nut. I buy & use a product marked as containing tree nuts, & have an allergic reaction. Hard to blame the maker. BUT, if the product is marked nut-free, & isn't & I have a reaction, then I probably have a claim.
Usually, cases like this are hard to establish negligence. Deceptive practices or false claims are easier to establish (like the product says "will reverse progress of greying hair" and it fails to do that and there is absolutely no support for that in any studies).
Ultimately...I'm sure people have had bad experiences with this product, like every product out there. It could be from failure to follow instructions, or allergies/sensitivities. It could be GR had some problems with production batches or formulation. They have a lot to narrow down - what formulations, time frame, was everyone affected the same way, does the complaint rise to the level of a real problem (eg, I lost 10-30 hairs when I showered each time v. I have huge bald patches & rashes), is it the formulation itself, or deceptive actions of a company in the production line (who failed to produce product as requested). people have bones to pick with everything - search the Internet, & you can find people praising soy, & also blaming it for health problems. Same with wheat & milk & rice & bamboo & honey. Everything has an impact, & it takes some common sense & instinct to determine what feels right for each person.
It is possible there is something more, but so far, no causation has been proven., and that alone won't be the whole story. The courts or mediation will sort this out. In the meantime, people should be aware of the concerns & act in their own best interests!
Blogs & Forums
