Received yesterday:
Ms. James:
I am writing to inform you that my office recently filed a civil cause of action on behalf of Catherine McLaughlin of Academy of Profession Hair Removal under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Businesses Practices Act, alleging, inter alia, that Rejuvenue International, Ltd. misrepresented the Super Phaser Gold as a FDA Class I medical device inducing my client to complete the purchase of this equipment.
The information that you provided on your HairFacts website was extremely helpful in understanding the Super Phaser Gold machine sold by Rejuvenue International, Ltd… As an attorney concentrating in employment law, I had no initial knowledge of the electrolysis field. Of the websites visited to learn about modern hair removal techniques, I found your site particularly informative. On the other hand, some information contained on this site does not portray my client in a positive manner. For example, and of great concern, the use of the word “Warning” in juxtaposition to Ms. Mclaughlin’s information obtained via a “Google” search is shown below:
Hairfacts: Catherine McLaughlin (WARNING!) [hairfacts dot com/makers/etweezer/ihrs/catherine-mclaughlin.html]
Hair removal facts for consumers. Free and commercial-free. … Catherine McLaughlin is a practitioner of “transcutaneous” hair … and its owner Catherine McLaughlin in an article titled … Growing Business." Ms. McLaughlin uses a device called the …
[hairfacts dot com/makers/etweezer/ihrs/catherine-mclaughlin.html]
As a consumer activist, I support your efforts to arm consumers with essential knowledge about this industry. I also am aware that you are not looking nor do you need my support. Nevertheless, I am asking for a small showing of support from you. In light of what appears to be a shared goal of preventing the allegedly improper marketing of electrolysis equipment, I respectfully request that you remove the “Warning” from your website to the extent these words are associated in any respect to Ms. McLaughlin. It is my sincere belief that Ms. McLaughlin is an honest and reputable business person who is herself the “victim” of an alleged improperly marketed device.
Please feel free to contact me either by email [RManzella2 at cs dot com] or by telephone (309) 454-8772 to discuss these issues further and/or provide a response to the above request.
Regards,
-Rich Manzella
Richard M. Manzella
112 Boeykins Place, Ste 3A
Normal, IL 61761Voice: (309) 454-8772
Fax: (815) 366-4800
Mr. Manzella:
While I fully support and encourage your client’s decision to bring action against Rejuvenu, it is my understanding from several dissatisfied consumers that your client was likely aware of the problems surrounding sales of the devices and treatments with them.
I am quite certain Ms. McLaughlin has a good case, but I also believe that she became aware of the controversy and chose to sell this product and treatments with it anyway. According to one client, Ms. McLaughlin insisted that consumers pay by cash only and was offering no receipts. That’s generally not a sign of someone who is a victim. Unfortunately, that’s exactly how scams like these succeed: the person who buys the machine is put in the unenviable position of having to refund money they no longer have to all consumers, or passing their own losses on to consumers through continued use of the fraudulent device. Once that happens, they move from victim to accomplice, and are unlikely to bring action against the manufacturer. Rejuvenu literally banks on this strategy.
What I would suggest is considering a larger suit on behalf of all of Ms. McLaughlin’s clients as well. That would result in a much larger settlement and probably put the company out of business once and for all. That would satisfy me that Ms. McLaughlin was trying to do the right thing. I will not take down the warning until I have a statement from Ms. McLaughlin that she is no longer selling the Rejuvenu device or treatments with it or any other transdermal, transcutaneous, or no-needle device; a list of names of everyone who purchased a device from her; and a copy of an ad in the Pantagraph announcing a suit against Rejuvenu on behalf of all her clients.
Another option you might consider would be a class action on behalf of everyone who has purchased the device. Almost anyone who has ever been listed as a practitioner or distributor is probably just as unhappy as Ms. McLaughlin.
Best of luck with your suit, and let me know if I can be of any assistance.
Andrea James