hair removal
hair removal facts: click for consumer recommendations
  
  Home  Medical data  Laser/Light  Photoepilator  Lawsuit excerpts 1973 (court transcript)   
   
NAVIGATION




Hair Removal Home
Hair Removal Methods
Hair Removal Directory
Hair Removal Search

Hair Removal "Permanent" *
Hair Removal Electrolysis *
Hair Removal Home electro *
Hair Removal Laser *
Hair Removal Flashlamp/IPL *
Hair Removal Combinations *
space * seeHair Removal note

Hair Removal Hair inhibitors
Hair Removal Home laser
Hair Removal Rx oral meds
Hair Removal Vaniqa

Hair Removal Temporary
Hair Removal Shaving
Hair Removal Depilatories
Hair Removal Friction
Hair Removal Tweezing
Hair Removal Waxing
Hair Removal Sugaring
Hair Removal Threading
Hair Removal Rotary epilators

Hair Removal Doubtful
Hair Removal Electric tweezer
Hair Removal Transdermal
Hair Removal Transcutaneous
Hair Removal Photoepilators
Hair Removal Microwaves
Hair Removal Dietary products
Hair Removal Herbal inhibitors

Hair Removal Recommended
Hair Removal Epilators
Hair Removal Electric razors
Hair Removal Home electrolysis
Hair Removal Home laser/IPL
Hair Removal Hot wax kits
Hair Removal Tweezers
Hair Removal Aftercare
Hair Removal Books

Hair Removal Other topics
Hair Removal  How to choose
Hair Removal  Tips
Hair Removal  Clinical data
Hair Removal  Manufacturers
Hair Removal  Regulation
Hair Removal  Info sources
Hair Removal  Scams
Hair Removal  Ripped off?

Hair Removal  FAQ
Hair Removal  Glossary
Hair Removal  Site info
Hair Removal  Feedback

Omicron class action excerpts, 1973

In 1973, PhotoEpilator manufacturer Omicron Systems was sued in California Superior Court by ten dissatisfied owners. The case was settled out of court by Omicron.

The ten owners purchased and used Omicron machines in 1971 and 1972, but quickly found the device did not perform as promised. The plaintiffs in the suit state in court documents, "We strongly feel that there is very little evidence that the photoepilator has any potential of permanent hair removal." Based on their use of the devices, they further state that "it does not perform as represented and is not reasonably effective in the permanent removal of hair."

The owners also describe the pain of the punching into a follicle with the oversized fiberoptic probe and the tweezing effect from poorly treated hairs. Finally, they claim it is "extremely boring, tedious, dull and an exhausting technique" that took up to 40 seconds per hair.

Upon settling the lawsuit, Omicron gave refunds after the plaintiffs returned the devices. Unfortunately, the devices were then resold to Carol Block, who continues to market photoepilators under the D'Plume brand name to this day.

Sources: California Superior Court, San Mateo County, Docket 173345 (Bien et. al. v. Omicron)

 

Was this helpful?  Support this site!
Still have questions? Ask them at my free HairTell  hair removal forum!

   
         

 

© 1996-2009 Andrea James. All rights reserved.
 

Legal Info / Terms of Use Revised 30 December, 2001 .