Nationwide Class Action Filed Against Hollywood Tans
A recent nationwide class action initiated by Meiselman, Denlea, Packman, Carton & Eberz P.C illustrates the fact that state consumer protection statutes are powerful and flexible tools that can be utilized to protect consumers and promote pro-consumer practices. As set forth in the complaint in Hadar v. Hollywood Tanning Systems, Inc., the defendant is being sued for its failure to warn adequately its tens of thousands of indoor tanning customers about the dangers of using Hollywood Tans' services and, in particular, about the increased risks of developing skin cancer.
Since the increased risks are not adequately disclosed, as claimed in the class action suit, consumers who purchased indoor tanning services were not given the opportunity to make an informed purchasing decision, with all of the material information provided to them prior to purchase and use of the services.
In addition, as the class action asserts, Hollywood Tans, along with the indoor tanning industry, in general, has engaged in marketing an indoor tan as a "safe tan" as compared to exposure to natural sunlight. So, even if a consumer generally understood the risk of sunbathing at a beach or poolside, a reasonable customer would not think that ultraviolet exposure at an indoor tanning salon was as risky, if not riskier (given the fact that many of the machines used actually deliver many times the UV amount as does natural sunlight).
As noted in the complaint, Hollywood Tans’ website promotes the "benefits of tanning," which, in an appeal to customers’ vanity, includes, according to defendant Hollywood Tans, the contention that customers "will look terrific" and that exposure to Hollywood Tans’ ultraviolet rays will help clear acne. In addition, Hollywood Tans further claims health benefits with respect to: psoriasis; body weight; stress; and seasonal affective disorder.
Unfortunately for consumers, contrary to the indoor tanning industry's claims, and as clearly stated by respected medical authorities, including the American Medical Association, the National Cancer Institute and the American Academy of Dermatology, exposure to indoor ultraviolet rays at indoor tanning salons is not "safe," regardless of whether a consumer "tans" or "burns."
The class action does not seek damages for any personal injuries, but rather, is brought under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (N.J.S.A 56: 8-1) for, among other things, restitution of the amounts paid by customers for indoor tanning services that were sold to them without proper and adequate warnings and information in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.
Please feel free to comment about the case and, in particular, your experiences with indoor tanning companies. In your opinion, do any of them actually warn customers and tell them that any exposure to indoor ultraviolet rays is risky?
