Business owners know that it’s impossible to please everybody. When unhappy with a product or service, customers may ask for a refund or write a negative review on Yelp. Unhappy customers-from-hell, on the other hand, may want the business to get prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law albeit having no legal basis.
There are instances, however, when it is completely justifiable to legally demand compensation from a business whose product or service was deeply unsatisfactory or worse, harmful. For example, when you buy a cup of coffee that’s so hot that it ends up giving you third-degree burns, you need to consult with a personal injury lawyer who can help you claim damages. The dissatisfied customers in the following cases should have just written a one-star review and left it at that.
Customer demands $30,000 from a salon for a bad dye job
Rules apply to certain types of hair treatments, and there are consequences when those rules are broken. For instance, it is harmful for hair to get excessive bleaching. Getting one’s hair wet after getting a perm should also be avoided. If customers break these rules and, in the process, end up unsatisfied with a salon that provided the service, they’re almost guaranteed to receive an apology, a voucher, or a refund. They are not entitled to receive thousands of dollars for bad service.
Jessica Bray from Melbourne was an indignant salon customer who wouldn’t be appeased with a refund. In 2018, she went to a salon to have her hair bleached blonde. It didn’t go well; she claimed that her hair became brittle, which necessitated a return to the salon to get it fixed. It didn’t get fixed.
She ended up having to shave a part of her hair and getting a style she didn’t want: a mullet. ‘80s-style hair wasn’t cool in 2018, which should explain why she was unhappy. When the salon tried to make further fixes, Ms. Bray remained unsatisfied.
Ms. Bray then filed a AU$30,000 lawsuit, citing humiliation and distress from the tragically unhip 80s-inspired ‘do that she did not ask for. The court deemed her claim excessive, so Ms. Bray ended up being awarded only AU$400, which included the amount of the treatment (AU$270) and compensation for the therapist appointment (AU$114) that was necessitated by her humiliation.
Skincare product harms users who may have ignored warning label
Consumers misusing skincare products then suing the manufacturer isn’t out of the ordinary. Sometimes these suits have merit, other times they don’t — as the case appears to be with skincare product The Ordinary.
DECIEM, makers of The Ordinary skincare products, is reportedly being sued by consumers who suffered from burns after using its AHA peeling solution. Some users of the product claimed that the product left them with chemical burns and that using the product was, overall, unpleasant. These consumers are purportedly egged on by a law firm pushing for a class-action lawsuit against the company.
Meanwhile, loyal users of the brand defended the product, swearing by its effectiveness when used properly. One particularly loyal user even decried the planned class-action lawsuit against it.
Skincare product manufacturers, even the retailers that sold them, can be held liable for defective products. Frankly, all those names of chemicals on the front label of The Ordinary products read like a list of ingredients for an industrial cleaning agent. In any case, don’t take skincare advice from us as we are not skincare specialists.
Man on Tinder seeks to legally take years off his age to get more “right swipes”
According to the World Health Organization, ageism is “leading to poorer physical and mental health and reduced quality of life for older persons”. To this, the WHO proposed anti-ageism strategies, none of which involved allowing people to fake their date of birth, whether on official documents or on dating apps like Tinder. This is what 69-year old Dutchman Emile Ratelband advocated for when he got on Tinder and found it difficult to get women to swipe right (i.e., get likes) on his profile.
To solve his Tinder trouble, Mr. Ratelband applied to legally change his birth date by 20 years to prevent being discriminated against on the dating app. According to him, this shouldn’t be a problem because people are allowed to change their name and gender anyway.
While ageism is widely acknowledged to be a societal ill, the court that took on the case rejected his application. The court stated that although Mr. Ratelband is free to feel young, changing legal documents is out of the question as it would result in "undesirable legal and societal implications".
This is a sound ruling. Indeed, realizing that one is no longer getting young and hot can indeed be harmful to one’s ego. Some of these harms, however, are self-inflicted for which the sensible recourse would be to log off.
If you’re dealing with a personal injury case in Washington state, preferably one that has nothing to do with hair dyes or Tinder, talk to attorneys Buckingham, LaGrandeur, & Williams.