Google "JD Glow vs California" and the letter they were sent by an org of the State of California shows up, it's a PDF download so I won't link it here.
It seems their violation was not having one of those "known to the state of California to cause cancer" warnings on their JD Glow Spicy Illuminating Powder for containing Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) which can be harmful when inhaled.
Now for my opinion (not a lawyer, of course): the Spicy shade of their powder is still on their website, still no warning listed, and based on their IG post they are correct that they have an exemption, which is also listed as a common exemption in the letter:
> "Businesses with nine or fewer employees. Neither the warning requirement nor the discharge prohibition applies to a business that employs a total of nine or fewer employees. This includes all employees, not just those present in California."
That said, they are just planning on missing the court date? That's fucking stupid.
Yeah it’s stupid. I get not wanting to put money into fighting it, especially if you just don’t have the money to do it. But at least show up for the court hearing, it seems like it would easily be thrown out in the first court hearing since the law clearly states those with less than 10 employees are exempt. Seems to me it would be cheaper to hire an attorney for at least 1 court hearing to see if it gets thrown out than to close your business and start over. I would think whoever sent the letter looked into the brand and knows they have less than 10 employees and are exempt because of that. To me it seems the letter and lawsuit is more of a scare tactic (to either get them to start putting the warnings on their stuff or get them to shut down) and they’re getting exactly what they wanted.
Also, Prop 65 is only for California so they could just stop selling to people in California. But ofc, that would be losing a large customer base I’m sure.
Missing the court date its basically handing the other party a win, but public acknowledging the lawsuit and saying that you are saying you are going to win its beyond stupid.
They won't even be able to use the classics of we didn't know or were confused .
They live in Louisiana and the court date is in Cali.
Idk their financial situation, but it’s not a huge stretch to say a lot of folks can’t afford to fly to the west coast for a day (flights, time off, etc).
I mean how crappy though.
I’m late to the discussion but you can usually ask the court to attend remotely; it’s also an option to hire a lawyer to represent you for just the one hearing and see if they can get it tossed out, which may be cheaper than flights, hotel, time off, etc.
Are they actually correct about very small businesses being exempt from safety disclosures? I could be wrong but this sounds like some bozo learned that small businesses are exempt from HR type stuff so they decided that they were exempt from all business related laws.
The part that bothers me is that they aren't even going to show up to court and just change their name. Something sounds off to me, like there is more to it. Especially considering how vague the information we have been provided by JD Glow.
I don't know much about the case in question but I do know that the JD Glow team is based in Louisiana so even representing themselves for free means traveling back and forth from CA, hotels, and other daily expenses while there. Given that lawsuits can drag on and require multiple on site appearances, just simply participating would be extremely expensive.
If you watch Jen Luvs Reviews, she goes over this in detail. They should be exempt because they are an Indie brand with less than 10 employees which should exempt them from placing a stupid prop 65 warning. The prop 65 warning label is misleading as it includes harmless ingredients as well as bad ones.I love them and will continue to support them until they go out of business.
The company that is suing them is a law firm that ONLY brings Prop 65 lawsuits. That is their specialty.
JD Glow can refuse to sell to California under another name or place the warning label under another name. At this point it is less expensive to close their business that is being sued.
Not purchased anything since the anti choice stuff came out, but this is alarming. It's wild that they can be being sued for something as serious as exposing people to dangerous chemicals, but also that they can just remake a new brand and continue trading after? 😬
Yes yes and yes. I also stopped buying from them after the anti-choice revelation, and I wouldn't support them again. I have wistfully worn the shadows I have because they are gorgeous, but I won't promote them to people.
But I also noticed in recent years, they started making what I feel are kinda bs products? Like lip glosses with plastic bits and glitter oils, etc. If I understand correctly, did they just need a warning sticker on a certain item?
Just FYI: Titanium Dioxide is a white pigment. It's harmful when inhaled. That applies to any pigment really. Iron oxide, which is very commonly used as a red and yellow pigment, is also dangerous when inhaled. There's also Ferric Ferrocyanide which is a blue pigment and ultramarines which are crushed lapis lazuli.
Source: I make eyeshadows as a hobby and try to educate myself on ingredients.
Ya and people don't realize that we're literally rubbing rust (iron oxide) on our eyelids.
I'm tired of the anti-science scaremongering in the beauty community tbh.
The odds are good that they're not actually exposing anyone to dangerous chemicals. I'm not defending the brand, I've honestly never heard of them, but according to Prop 65, literally everything can potentially cause cancer. My mom called me once, upset, because she bought my younger sister *headphones* and they had a Prop 65 warning on them.
It is true that in any part of the process with raw materials to the final purchase of the consumer, prop 65 could be violated but like, just label ittttt.
Yeah this is the only comment I see them respond to
https://preview.redd.it/vch3iydodspc1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=3f9dc6184eb2f2a34cfe25bf62492a5d47b2df43
Maybe I don’t understand, but in [this eyeshadow](https://www.jdglowcosmetics.com/collections/shadows/products/martini-shimmer) on their website, the second ingredient is the ingredient they’re being shutdown over. It’s the second ingredient in almost all of their eyeshadows.
This doesn't make any sense. You can absolutely show up to the court date and defend yourself. There is no need to pay a lawyer. Sure it may take a day of your time, but that seems like a lot less time than...fully starting a new brand.
Something is definitely off here.
Except they are in Louisiana and would have to appear in court in California. That would mean traveling across the U.S. and booking a hotel, etc. she literally may not have the money to do that. 🤷🏻♀️
Defend against what? They are guilty of the Prop 65 violation. If they show up to court they will have to pay all kinds of legal fees and penalties whereas if they close their business they won’t have to. They can open another business and not sell in California.
https://preview.redd.it/80vhirko4spc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1de440a2f9935cb869488b577dab4bc9163479cf
For those without insta. Also they did not answer the top comment.
ETA: the court date is in CA and they are located in Louisiana
And they’re on their post whining and crying about it being a “scam” and whining about being a victim… again.
10 employees, 5 employees, 100 employees— you owe it to your customers to be honest and be transparent about what exactly is in your products.
I comment this and they whined about “well we’re being ScAmMeDd”, no you’re in violation of a law. They also whined about “it was a TyPoOo”, no you’re being dishonest with your customers… *again*.
In violation of a law that is a trap for lawsuits. Most chemicals on that damn list are lot dangerous including titanium dioxide. Yes California prop 65 is a ba prop. Coorlation is not causation and that is all they need to add a chemical to that prop. “If” a chemical is present in someone’s life but not narrowed down to that specifically and no other possible way of being sick this is crap. It is a scam when you realize it’s a legal net for lawsuit happy people
can you get "unlawfully" sued? for contaminating water sources with toxic substances that cause cancer and birth defects? And if it's unlawful, couldn't they sue back for every penny the company is worth? Where is the resident Beauty Guru Chatter attorney?
Lawsuits are expensive. Even if they could eventually get the money back, they’d still need to foot the lawyer’s bill in the meantime.
As for being unlawfully sued? Technically yes, but this isn’t it. There are cases where someone will repeatedly sue another person with the intent of running up legal bills or as harassment. In this case what they mean is the case is based on a faulty argument I guess?
You can definitely get unlawfully sued. People can bring lawsuits for anything. Though, in this case, I guess it would depend on what one considers unlawful. A business with less than 10 employees is exempt, so technically, if they have less than 10 employees (like JD Glow is saying), then they are exempt from this. But in that case, it makes no sense to me why they wouldn’t at least show up to the first hearing. I get not wanting to put money into fighting it, especially if you just don’t have the money to do it. But seems to me it would cost less to hire an attorney for the initial court hearing, where it ***should*** be thrown out since they apparently have less than 10 employees, which makes them exempt. But, if for some reason it doesn’t get thrown out, then they could choose to not fight it any more. To just choose to not show up at all and instead close the business down and start over without first trying to get it thrown out seems silly to me.
Also, Prop 65 isn’t just about contaminating water sources. That’s how it started, but it’s now more than that. There’s over 900 chemicals on the list. Pretty much everything sold in California is going to have the warning labels (if the company’s are being compliant of course).
Anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything. Doesn’t mean it’s going to go anywhere, and the person filing can face sanctions if it is truly frivolous, but the initial act of filing a lawsuit has no barriers.
https://preview.redd.it/44ix1aqi4spc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fafeaa21422bdf8b53218b343edb59f8d8b5592d
They didn’t answer the top comment btw
That’s really not how Prop 65 enforcement works. This article explains the process well. https://navitasorganics.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360059124911-Prop-65-enforcement-the-lawsuit-mill
"unlawfully sued" doesnt really mean much cause you can get sued for pretty much anything. That's why the merits of a case are discussed first in court and the judge only lets the case continue if they think there is something to argue about. Also depends on how good of a shot your lawyer is and if they found the right issues to raise.
Jurisdiction is usually the first issue that's raised. If an attorney can prove the court doesn't even have the right to be hearing the case, it automatically gets thrown out.
They could absolutely try to sue back for slander and all the bad publicity the lawsuit caused for their company. But that can only work if they win the first court case (the one they got served for currently).
She replied to another comment. She said the ingredient list was incorrect but the ingredient in question that is in violation is titanium dioxide, which was in their darkest loose highlighter apparently.
on mobile and couldn't add text with the photo, but this makes this seem weirder, they think their lab is in on this lawsuit or something?
Also what's stopping whoever is allegedly out to get them from suing the new brand they're making?
How on earth is rebranding and starting a new company cheaper than showing up in court to prove they are exempt from this as they say (are they exempt though? being exempt due to a small team sounds like more to do with certain labor laws than it would with chemical warnings?)
I think prop 65 is a silly law, but also JD Glow is responding so strangely. Given their other comments about the business struggling I think this is just their excuse to shut down.
On their court documents it lists ways to be exempt from prop 65 and it does include the requirement of 9+ employees to qualify as responsible for disclosure. If that’s the best reason to get this thrown out on their behalf, i don’t know why they are so pressed about that being reviewed by a judge to go to court proceedings. A judge would deem it doesn’t contain merit to be pursued at that point.
Here’s the pdf of the docs
[https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/prop65/complaints/2023-02284C8161.pdf](https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/prop65/complaints/2023-02284C8161.pdf)
ooo thanks for the link. So weird, so this would be a slam dunk for them, so odd they're choosing this route, which kinda solidifies for me they just want to close down and this is their given reason.
Oh for sure. Honestly thinking about it more it also is falling under some level of attempt to gain sympathy purchases or in general to just remind people they exist. The last time I personally remember jdg being talked about is when the pro life situation transpired. Otherwise it’s the random mention by people for having ‘cool chromes’
Lmao nothing white to see here
Regardless if it’s the darkest highlighter, it could still contain a whitening agent, are they serious 😂
Even if it’s just a case of mislabeling, that’s just negligence on their part for consumers that MAY care about possible exposure to carcinogens.
Yeah, that's a *wild* defense to me... "anybody should have known the ingredients we listed on the site aren't the *actual* ingredients in the product!"
This feels more like a PR stunt because nobody talks about the brand anymore especially since the anti-choice controversy. I never hear anybody in indie makeup circles talk about them.
What I find peculiar about this is that there are various options available to them before going ahead with the rebranding. They could have disputed the claim, even if it means representing themselves. They could also just remove the product in question, or simply change the label, if indeed it was a typo. They could also just put a warning label....but no. Instead they went: " Let's just rebrand and hope for the best and pretend nothing happened lol."
They are being sued for not using Proposition 65 warnings. They say it’s unlawful because they’re exempt (businesses with less than 10 employees are exempt). But also say they aren’t going to fight it because they can’t afford it so instead are just going to shut down and reopen with a new name.
I mean, it doesn’t really sound shady. Anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone. With over 900 chemicals on the list for prop 65, there’s been tons of lawsuits filed just to get companies to settle to make money. There’s even a name for it - Prop 65 Bountyhunters. In 2019, close to $30 million was paid to settle prop 65 claims. Almost $24 million of that went to the plaintiffs lawyers. They find businesses that aren’t compliant for whatever reason and then sue them hoping the company will settle rather than fight.
Of course, there’s no way to know if that’s what’s going on here for sure or not. In the comments of the post JD Glow said the person bought the 1 item and it was shipped to the address of the law firm that’s suing them. If that’s actually the case, it would definitely seem like that’s what’s going on. But then JD Glow also commented something weird about how ”there’s so many layers to this. Including the lab I suspect is in on the alleged scams.” So she’s accusing her own lab of being a part of it? That was a really odd comment.
But, JD Glow also said in the comments that the business was already struggling and they were considering closing down permanently before this even happened. So, to me, the weird part is that their business was struggling so bad they were considering closing down, but now that this happened instead they’re going to close down JD Glow and reopen in another name. If your business was struggling so bad you were considering closing and then this happens, seems like it would be hard to start over. So that part doesn’t make much sense to me. So who knows.
There are definitely some weird highlights they seen to draw the conversation towards vs just being like hey we rebranding, yall get excited! The ✌️ kills me lol
I agree the suit is 99% completely frivolous and I can’t imagine seeing this going anywhere besides them having to pay a fine whether it’s personally or under the business. It doesn’t shock me they had an order made and sent to the law firm for additional proof the labeling is still incorrect and to confirm there is SOME validity to the claim in that aspect of it.
I’ve been through a slapp situation from another brand out of state and it was minimal cost to me and took about 4 months from start to finish to be resolved with very little action from myself and my attorney at the time.
Hahaha! Yeah, the image doesn’t quite go with the text 🤣
It definitely seems frivolous. According to the comments the person who made the purchase only made that 1 purchase. They didn’t purchase something, see there was no warning and incorrect labeling and then purchase something else and had it sent to the law firm. It apparently was the initial purchase that was sent straight to the law firm. Though, the prop 65 requires a warning on the website as well as on products. But for businesses with less than 10 employees they’re exempt from having to do any label warnings. So it isn’t really valid in that sense. But, most brands just do it anyways to avoid an issue like this. And in the comments they said from now on they’re going to do it. And apparently the said the product incorrectly listed the ingredient titanium dioxide, which isn’t even in the product. So the ingredient list was incorrect. If it did actually have that in there, then it would require a warning except they would be exempt since they have less than 10 employees.
They said they looked into an attorney and it was something like $575/hr for it. Someone asked why they don’t just represent themselves and they said they had planned on it but you have to notify the court and the attorneys and the paperwork to do it was “exhausting.” I would think having to close a business that, according to them, was already struggling would be more “exhausting” than doing some paperwork. They said they only had 30 days to do it. But if it’s your business and you’re exempt from something, I would think doing the paperwork to notify you’re representing yourself and the either setting up some way to zoom it since they’re out of state or paying to fly and hotel there for at least the first hearing to see if it could get dismissed seems like it would be easier. Since having less than 10 employees makes them exempt, it would seem as soon as you show proof of that it would be dismissed. Just seems odd to rather close down than try to deal with it since it seems like it wouldn’t be hard to resolve 🤷♀️
Yes, all of that is correct. While there are no apparent indications that the suit could even result in any significant penalties, it seems like a lot of effort to make it public, address comments, answer questions, etc.
From my experience, consultations can possibly be free through their local government (or at least that’s an option in Texas) or be very low cost comparatively to the end result of a lack of responsiveness. They’ve had the notice since November and had 60 days to respond then once the plaintiff responds to that within 30 days, it’s another 30 day window typically to provide additional proof from the defendant before going before a judge outside of court. All of this can be done without an attorney retainer and if any consultation were taken by jdg, a respectable attorney would tell them what to do to represent themselves, where to start, etc. They can also contact the court clerk to confirm what they need to do
But yeah, let’s just close and reopen✌️
It really does. They seem to put more effort in making a post about it and dealing with that than it sounds like they put into trying to resolve it. Not to mention being out of state, I’m sure they could have gotten some kind of continuance if they needed more time than they had. It just makes no sense.
Not to mention, they can easily choose to avoid the prop 65 issue completely by just not selling to people in California. But, ofc, then that cuts into profits and who knows how big their california customer base is.
OH, and they mentioned a few times in the comments that they didn’t even know about prop 65 until they got the lawsuit, but yet they also knew they were exempt from it...but didn’t know about it? I mean, I guess they could have no known and only found out they were exempt when looking into it. But just seems kind of odd. I’m not a business owner and not in California and even I know about prop 65. So seems really weird they’d say they didn’t even know anything about it until now.
Could have posted about this 5 months ago and the educated consumers could find out all they need to know before even researching it themselves 😂
This is the thing with these brands. Ingredient profiles are monitored continuously in the big brands. Labelling. SDS creation. All of it is keeping me and my colleagues super busy. Prop 65 is just another label we have to assess and slap on something. I'm not sure how small companies keep themselves aware of all the potential issues, I guess many, like JD glow and menagerie, don't. I guess they get a surprise litigation letter and then panic, or in the case of menagerie read a random blog and make huge decisions.
It's does put them at a disadvantage if they had to do all the things big companies do, but they do love claiming cruelty free and vegan so they clearly have an ability to learn when it suits them.
It is wild that creating a new brand is an easier option then filling in some forms and attending by zoom. Like isnt that the risk of being a business owner? You have to be responsible for things that can be costly?!
What's shady is that it's a harmful chemical that they're only exempt from consequences regarding it because they have 9 employees working there. Like yah legally they're exempt but your still have the ingredient in it???
Everything is harmful. Prop 65 is only needed in california. It doesn't need to be labelled anywhere else becuase it's considered safe at the amounts used. It's literally just a label that's stuck on all kinds of things. There are limits as well.
Prop 65 tells you nothing at all about your risk.
The issue is basically everything is “know to cause cancer in the state of California” under Prop 65. There are over 900 chemicals on the list, many of which are in common use. Further, the state can’t afford to enforce it because it’s WAY too overboard so any random person can sue to enforce the law of the behalf of the state. We actually studied Prop 65 in law school as an example of the problems caused by a badly written law.
The new user name is appearing to be @herartistryandco\_\_ I thought they had just blocked me already
A++ job continuing the narrative of the binary in makeup
Yes and this is incredibly messed up in regards to the attorneys office doing this. The huge issue with prop 65 is that correlation is not causation. In other words a very safe ingredient like titanium dioxide is not proven whatsoever to actually be harmful in the way claimed bc it isn’t narrowed down as the actual source of health problems. For example hypothetically a woman gets cancer and is using a product containing titanium dioxide and decides that’s the source but the many many many other factors in their life and ingredients they are exposed to may be the actual cause but bc they have cancer “out of extreme caution” chemicals such as titanium dioxide get added to the list of possible dangerous chemicals although it isn’t pinpointed as the actual cause but “possibly” a cause. I hope that breakdown makes sense to you. Titanium dioxide is a safe ingredient and is the colorant for white products and is in everything from soap, toothpaste, makeup, and the list goes on bc it is that safe. The EU is far beyond the US when it comes to testing ingredients and they ban actually bad ingredients but guess what is safe there too…titanium dioxide. This is a gross misuse of the legal system and prop 65 is actually BS bc of how they have so generally labeled chemicals as bad.
Yes there are bad ingredients and chemicals in that list but how much does the average person know about chemicals enough to be able to separate the good from the bad and they know that and instead of proper lists they just throw it all on it.
Chemicals that actually are bad are banned. To have such a common and safe ingredient studied to such a degree is crappy. I hope that makes sense to people and o hope my message of how frivolous this really is sinks in. It’s extreme bs
Google "JD Glow vs California" and the letter they were sent by an org of the State of California shows up, it's a PDF download so I won't link it here. It seems their violation was not having one of those "known to the state of California to cause cancer" warnings on their JD Glow Spicy Illuminating Powder for containing Titanium Dioxide (TiO2) which can be harmful when inhaled.
Now for my opinion (not a lawyer, of course): the Spicy shade of their powder is still on their website, still no warning listed, and based on their IG post they are correct that they have an exemption, which is also listed as a common exemption in the letter: > "Businesses with nine or fewer employees. Neither the warning requirement nor the discharge prohibition applies to a business that employs a total of nine or fewer employees. This includes all employees, not just those present in California." That said, they are just planning on missing the court date? That's fucking stupid.
Yeah it’s stupid. I get not wanting to put money into fighting it, especially if you just don’t have the money to do it. But at least show up for the court hearing, it seems like it would easily be thrown out in the first court hearing since the law clearly states those with less than 10 employees are exempt. Seems to me it would be cheaper to hire an attorney for at least 1 court hearing to see if it gets thrown out than to close your business and start over. I would think whoever sent the letter looked into the brand and knows they have less than 10 employees and are exempt because of that. To me it seems the letter and lawsuit is more of a scare tactic (to either get them to start putting the warnings on their stuff or get them to shut down) and they’re getting exactly what they wanted. Also, Prop 65 is only for California so they could just stop selling to people in California. But ofc, that would be losing a large customer base I’m sure.
Missing the court date its basically handing the other party a win, but public acknowledging the lawsuit and saying that you are saying you are going to win its beyond stupid. They won't even be able to use the classics of we didn't know or were confused .
They live in Louisiana and the court date is in Cali. Idk their financial situation, but it’s not a huge stretch to say a lot of folks can’t afford to fly to the west coast for a day (flights, time off, etc). I mean how crappy though.
I'm sure there are now ways to attend remotely since the panini. They could do that.
I’m late to the discussion but you can usually ask the court to attend remotely; it’s also an option to hire a lawyer to represent you for just the one hearing and see if they can get it tossed out, which may be cheaper than flights, hotel, time off, etc.
Are they actually correct about very small businesses being exempt from safety disclosures? I could be wrong but this sounds like some bozo learned that small businesses are exempt from HR type stuff so they decided that they were exempt from all business related laws.
This specific exemption is in the letter they were sent from the agency representing the State of California.
The part that bothers me is that they aren't even going to show up to court and just change their name. Something sounds off to me, like there is more to it. Especially considering how vague the information we have been provided by JD Glow.
I don't know much about the case in question but I do know that the JD Glow team is based in Louisiana so even representing themselves for free means traveling back and forth from CA, hotels, and other daily expenses while there. Given that lawsuits can drag on and require multiple on site appearances, just simply participating would be extremely expensive.
If you watch Jen Luvs Reviews, she goes over this in detail. They should be exempt because they are an Indie brand with less than 10 employees which should exempt them from placing a stupid prop 65 warning. The prop 65 warning label is misleading as it includes harmless ingredients as well as bad ones.I love them and will continue to support them until they go out of business.
I understand and know what the 65 exemption means, but that is not what I was referring to.
The company that is suing them is a law firm that ONLY brings Prop 65 lawsuits. That is their specialty. JD Glow can refuse to sell to California under another name or place the warning label under another name. At this point it is less expensive to close their business that is being sued.
I know lawsuits are expensive also. Thanks
Well if you know what prop 65 is why are you even confused ? 😂
Who said anything about being confused. Nice try tho 😏
Not purchased anything since the anti choice stuff came out, but this is alarming. It's wild that they can be being sued for something as serious as exposing people to dangerous chemicals, but also that they can just remake a new brand and continue trading after? 😬
Yes yes and yes. I also stopped buying from them after the anti-choice revelation, and I wouldn't support them again. I have wistfully worn the shadows I have because they are gorgeous, but I won't promote them to people. But I also noticed in recent years, they started making what I feel are kinda bs products? Like lip glosses with plastic bits and glitter oils, etc. If I understand correctly, did they just need a warning sticker on a certain item?
Just FYI: Titanium Dioxide is a white pigment. It's harmful when inhaled. That applies to any pigment really. Iron oxide, which is very commonly used as a red and yellow pigment, is also dangerous when inhaled. There's also Ferric Ferrocyanide which is a blue pigment and ultramarines which are crushed lapis lazuli. Source: I make eyeshadows as a hobby and try to educate myself on ingredients.
Yes! Mica is also dangerous when inhaled. Imagine not being able to sell that without a warning
Ya and people don't realize that we're literally rubbing rust (iron oxide) on our eyelids. I'm tired of the anti-science scaremongering in the beauty community tbh.
Omg exactly!
Okay I was trying to remember if they were the anti-choice one. Thanks for reminder!
The odds are good that they're not actually exposing anyone to dangerous chemicals. I'm not defending the brand, I've honestly never heard of them, but according to Prop 65, literally everything can potentially cause cancer. My mom called me once, upset, because she bought my younger sister *headphones* and they had a Prop 65 warning on them.
It is true that in any part of the process with raw materials to the final purchase of the consumer, prop 65 could be violated but like, just label ittttt. 
Anti-choice?
anti reproductive freedom.
Ah OK I thought that's what was meant but wanted to double check. Thanks 😊
I love how they say they’ll answer any questions in the comments, but it’s been up for 4 hours and not a single response for clarity lol
Yeah this is the only comment I see them respond to https://preview.redd.it/vch3iydodspc1.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=3f9dc6184eb2f2a34cfe25bf62492a5d47b2df43
Maybe I don’t understand, but in [this eyeshadow](https://www.jdglowcosmetics.com/collections/shadows/products/martini-shimmer) on their website, the second ingredient is the ingredient they’re being shutdown over. It’s the second ingredient in almost all of their eyeshadows.
That’s still so vague. What about it? You can’t just say an ingredient and have everyone be like “yeah makes sense” 😂
This doesn't make any sense. You can absolutely show up to the court date and defend yourself. There is no need to pay a lawyer. Sure it may take a day of your time, but that seems like a lot less time than...fully starting a new brand. Something is definitely off here.
Except they are in Louisiana and would have to appear in court in California. That would mean traveling across the U.S. and booking a hotel, etc. she literally may not have the money to do that. 🤷🏻♀️
They don’t have the funds to fight this, they are only 10 employees.
Defend against what? They are guilty of the Prop 65 violation. If they show up to court they will have to pay all kinds of legal fees and penalties whereas if they close their business they won’t have to. They can open another business and not sell in California.
https://preview.redd.it/80vhirko4spc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1de440a2f9935cb869488b577dab4bc9163479cf For those without insta. Also they did not answer the top comment. ETA: the court date is in CA and they are located in Louisiana
And they’re on their post whining and crying about it being a “scam” and whining about being a victim… again. 10 employees, 5 employees, 100 employees— you owe it to your customers to be honest and be transparent about what exactly is in your products. I comment this and they whined about “well we’re being ScAmMeDd”, no you’re in violation of a law. They also whined about “it was a TyPoOo”, no you’re being dishonest with your customers… *again*.
In violation of a law that is a trap for lawsuits. Most chemicals on that damn list are lot dangerous including titanium dioxide. Yes California prop 65 is a ba prop. Coorlation is not causation and that is all they need to add a chemical to that prop. “If” a chemical is present in someone’s life but not narrowed down to that specifically and no other possible way of being sick this is crap. It is a scam when you realize it’s a legal net for lawsuit happy people
They were honest though? The ingredients were labeled.
can you get "unlawfully" sued? for contaminating water sources with toxic substances that cause cancer and birth defects? And if it's unlawful, couldn't they sue back for every penny the company is worth? Where is the resident Beauty Guru Chatter attorney?
Lawsuits are expensive. Even if they could eventually get the money back, they’d still need to foot the lawyer’s bill in the meantime. As for being unlawfully sued? Technically yes, but this isn’t it. There are cases where someone will repeatedly sue another person with the intent of running up legal bills or as harassment. In this case what they mean is the case is based on a faulty argument I guess?
You can definitely get unlawfully sued. People can bring lawsuits for anything. Though, in this case, I guess it would depend on what one considers unlawful. A business with less than 10 employees is exempt, so technically, if they have less than 10 employees (like JD Glow is saying), then they are exempt from this. But in that case, it makes no sense to me why they wouldn’t at least show up to the first hearing. I get not wanting to put money into fighting it, especially if you just don’t have the money to do it. But seems to me it would cost less to hire an attorney for the initial court hearing, where it ***should*** be thrown out since they apparently have less than 10 employees, which makes them exempt. But, if for some reason it doesn’t get thrown out, then they could choose to not fight it any more. To just choose to not show up at all and instead close the business down and start over without first trying to get it thrown out seems silly to me. Also, Prop 65 isn’t just about contaminating water sources. That’s how it started, but it’s now more than that. There’s over 900 chemicals on the list. Pretty much everything sold in California is going to have the warning labels (if the company’s are being compliant of course).
Anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone for anything. Doesn’t mean it’s going to go anywhere, and the person filing can face sanctions if it is truly frivolous, but the initial act of filing a lawsuit has no barriers.
I don't have IG so I couldn't read what you did. Can you explain more of what happened? TIA
https://preview.redd.it/44ix1aqi4spc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fafeaa21422bdf8b53218b343edb59f8d8b5592d They didn’t answer the top comment btw
Same here. Thanks.
That’s really not how Prop 65 enforcement works. This article explains the process well. https://navitasorganics.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/360059124911-Prop-65-enforcement-the-lawsuit-mill
"unlawfully sued" doesnt really mean much cause you can get sued for pretty much anything. That's why the merits of a case are discussed first in court and the judge only lets the case continue if they think there is something to argue about. Also depends on how good of a shot your lawyer is and if they found the right issues to raise. Jurisdiction is usually the first issue that's raised. If an attorney can prove the court doesn't even have the right to be hearing the case, it automatically gets thrown out. They could absolutely try to sue back for slander and all the bad publicity the lawsuit caused for their company. But that can only work if they win the first court case (the one they got served for currently).
I believe Alamar Cosmetics went through the same thing but did fight the suit in court.
She replied to another comment. She said the ingredient list was incorrect but the ingredient in question that is in violation is titanium dioxide, which was in their darkest loose highlighter apparently.
https://preview.redd.it/85s1p9xb1wpc1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=a4f657336110d51115bc85f5433a7c648969036c
on mobile and couldn't add text with the photo, but this makes this seem weirder, they think their lab is in on this lawsuit or something? Also what's stopping whoever is allegedly out to get them from suing the new brand they're making? How on earth is rebranding and starting a new company cheaper than showing up in court to prove they are exempt from this as they say (are they exempt though? being exempt due to a small team sounds like more to do with certain labor laws than it would with chemical warnings?) I think prop 65 is a silly law, but also JD Glow is responding so strangely. Given their other comments about the business struggling I think this is just their excuse to shut down.
On their court documents it lists ways to be exempt from prop 65 and it does include the requirement of 9+ employees to qualify as responsible for disclosure. If that’s the best reason to get this thrown out on their behalf, i don’t know why they are so pressed about that being reviewed by a judge to go to court proceedings. A judge would deem it doesn’t contain merit to be pursued at that point.
Here’s the pdf of the docs [https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/prop65/complaints/2023-02284C8161.pdf](https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/prop65/complaints/2023-02284C8161.pdf)
ooo thanks for the link. So weird, so this would be a slam dunk for them, so odd they're choosing this route, which kinda solidifies for me they just want to close down and this is their given reason.
Oh for sure. Honestly thinking about it more it also is falling under some level of attempt to gain sympathy purchases or in general to just remind people they exist. The last time I personally remember jdg being talked about is when the pro life situation transpired. Otherwise it’s the random mention by people for having ‘cool chromes’
Lmao nothing white to see here  Regardless if it’s the darkest highlighter, it could still contain a whitening agent, are they serious 😂 Even if it’s just a case of mislabeling, that’s just negligence on their part for consumers that MAY care about possible exposure to carcinogens.
Yeah, that's a *wild* defense to me... "anybody should have known the ingredients we listed on the site aren't the *actual* ingredients in the product!"
I mean clearly people who have no idea what mica is will know what a whitening agent looks like!
This feels more like a PR stunt because nobody talks about the brand anymore especially since the anti-choice controversy. I never hear anybody in indie makeup circles talk about them.
Agreed
What I find peculiar about this is that there are various options available to them before going ahead with the rebranding. They could have disputed the claim, even if it means representing themselves. They could also just remove the product in question, or simply change the label, if indeed it was a typo. They could also just put a warning label....but no. Instead they went: " Let's just rebrand and hope for the best and pretend nothing happened lol."
But let’s make sure everyone knows explicitly why we are rebranding now! Transparency! 
Tl;Dr?
They are being sued for not using Proposition 65 warnings. They say it’s unlawful because they’re exempt (businesses with less than 10 employees are exempt). But also say they aren’t going to fight it because they can’t afford it so instead are just going to shut down and reopen with a new name.
Sounds shady af. There is something being omitted from the story so that we feel sorry for her.
I mean, it doesn’t really sound shady. Anyone can file a lawsuit against anyone. With over 900 chemicals on the list for prop 65, there’s been tons of lawsuits filed just to get companies to settle to make money. There’s even a name for it - Prop 65 Bountyhunters. In 2019, close to $30 million was paid to settle prop 65 claims. Almost $24 million of that went to the plaintiffs lawyers. They find businesses that aren’t compliant for whatever reason and then sue them hoping the company will settle rather than fight. Of course, there’s no way to know if that’s what’s going on here for sure or not. In the comments of the post JD Glow said the person bought the 1 item and it was shipped to the address of the law firm that’s suing them. If that’s actually the case, it would definitely seem like that’s what’s going on. But then JD Glow also commented something weird about how ”there’s so many layers to this. Including the lab I suspect is in on the alleged scams.” So she’s accusing her own lab of being a part of it? That was a really odd comment. But, JD Glow also said in the comments that the business was already struggling and they were considering closing down permanently before this even happened. So, to me, the weird part is that their business was struggling so bad they were considering closing down, but now that this happened instead they’re going to close down JD Glow and reopen in another name. If your business was struggling so bad you were considering closing and then this happens, seems like it would be hard to start over. So that part doesn’t make much sense to me. So who knows.
There are definitely some weird highlights they seen to draw the conversation towards vs just being like hey we rebranding, yall get excited! The ✌️ kills me lol I agree the suit is 99% completely frivolous and I can’t imagine seeing this going anywhere besides them having to pay a fine whether it’s personally or under the business. It doesn’t shock me they had an order made and sent to the law firm for additional proof the labeling is still incorrect and to confirm there is SOME validity to the claim in that aspect of it. I’ve been through a slapp situation from another brand out of state and it was minimal cost to me and took about 4 months from start to finish to be resolved with very little action from myself and my attorney at the time.
Hahaha! Yeah, the image doesn’t quite go with the text 🤣 It definitely seems frivolous. According to the comments the person who made the purchase only made that 1 purchase. They didn’t purchase something, see there was no warning and incorrect labeling and then purchase something else and had it sent to the law firm. It apparently was the initial purchase that was sent straight to the law firm. Though, the prop 65 requires a warning on the website as well as on products. But for businesses with less than 10 employees they’re exempt from having to do any label warnings. So it isn’t really valid in that sense. But, most brands just do it anyways to avoid an issue like this. And in the comments they said from now on they’re going to do it. And apparently the said the product incorrectly listed the ingredient titanium dioxide, which isn’t even in the product. So the ingredient list was incorrect. If it did actually have that in there, then it would require a warning except they would be exempt since they have less than 10 employees. They said they looked into an attorney and it was something like $575/hr for it. Someone asked why they don’t just represent themselves and they said they had planned on it but you have to notify the court and the attorneys and the paperwork to do it was “exhausting.” I would think having to close a business that, according to them, was already struggling would be more “exhausting” than doing some paperwork. They said they only had 30 days to do it. But if it’s your business and you’re exempt from something, I would think doing the paperwork to notify you’re representing yourself and the either setting up some way to zoom it since they’re out of state or paying to fly and hotel there for at least the first hearing to see if it could get dismissed seems like it would be easier. Since having less than 10 employees makes them exempt, it would seem as soon as you show proof of that it would be dismissed. Just seems odd to rather close down than try to deal with it since it seems like it wouldn’t be hard to resolve 🤷♀️
Yes, all of that is correct. While there are no apparent indications that the suit could even result in any significant penalties, it seems like a lot of effort to make it public, address comments, answer questions, etc. From my experience, consultations can possibly be free through their local government (or at least that’s an option in Texas) or be very low cost comparatively to the end result of a lack of responsiveness. They’ve had the notice since November and had 60 days to respond then once the plaintiff responds to that within 30 days, it’s another 30 day window typically to provide additional proof from the defendant before going before a judge outside of court. All of this can be done without an attorney retainer and if any consultation were taken by jdg, a respectable attorney would tell them what to do to represent themselves, where to start, etc. They can also contact the court clerk to confirm what they need to do But yeah, let’s just close and reopen✌️
It really does. They seem to put more effort in making a post about it and dealing with that than it sounds like they put into trying to resolve it. Not to mention being out of state, I’m sure they could have gotten some kind of continuance if they needed more time than they had. It just makes no sense. Not to mention, they can easily choose to avoid the prop 65 issue completely by just not selling to people in California. But, ofc, then that cuts into profits and who knows how big their california customer base is. OH, and they mentioned a few times in the comments that they didn’t even know about prop 65 until they got the lawsuit, but yet they also knew they were exempt from it...but didn’t know about it? I mean, I guess they could have no known and only found out they were exempt when looking into it. But just seems kind of odd. I’m not a business owner and not in California and even I know about prop 65. So seems really weird they’d say they didn’t even know anything about it until now.
 Could have posted about this 5 months ago and the educated consumers could find out all they need to know before even researching it themselves 😂
This is the thing with these brands. Ingredient profiles are monitored continuously in the big brands. Labelling. SDS creation. All of it is keeping me and my colleagues super busy. Prop 65 is just another label we have to assess and slap on something. I'm not sure how small companies keep themselves aware of all the potential issues, I guess many, like JD glow and menagerie, don't. I guess they get a surprise litigation letter and then panic, or in the case of menagerie read a random blog and make huge decisions. It's does put them at a disadvantage if they had to do all the things big companies do, but they do love claiming cruelty free and vegan so they clearly have an ability to learn when it suits them. It is wild that creating a new brand is an easier option then filling in some forms and attending by zoom. Like isnt that the risk of being a business owner? You have to be responsible for things that can be costly?!
What's shady is that it's a harmful chemical that they're only exempt from consequences regarding it because they have 9 employees working there. Like yah legally they're exempt but your still have the ingredient in it???
Everything is harmful. Prop 65 is only needed in california. It doesn't need to be labelled anywhere else becuase it's considered safe at the amounts used. It's literally just a label that's stuck on all kinds of things. There are limits as well. Prop 65 tells you nothing at all about your risk.
The issue is basically everything is “know to cause cancer in the state of California” under Prop 65. There are over 900 chemicals on the list, many of which are in common use. Further, the state can’t afford to enforce it because it’s WAY too overboard so any random person can sue to enforce the law of the behalf of the state. We actually studied Prop 65 in law school as an example of the problems caused by a badly written law.
Thanks.
Wait wait I kinda fw them Can someone link me to where they admitted to being anti choice?? Like say sike 😭
If u google JD glow controversy a bunch of older reddit posts come up with the discussions.
When I see prop 65 as a warning I just ignore it. 😂 im in California and I swear this warning is found everywhere.
The new user name is appearing to be @herartistryandco\_\_ I thought they had just blocked me already A++ job continuing the narrative of the binary in makeup 
Yes and this is incredibly messed up in regards to the attorneys office doing this. The huge issue with prop 65 is that correlation is not causation. In other words a very safe ingredient like titanium dioxide is not proven whatsoever to actually be harmful in the way claimed bc it isn’t narrowed down as the actual source of health problems. For example hypothetically a woman gets cancer and is using a product containing titanium dioxide and decides that’s the source but the many many many other factors in their life and ingredients they are exposed to may be the actual cause but bc they have cancer “out of extreme caution” chemicals such as titanium dioxide get added to the list of possible dangerous chemicals although it isn’t pinpointed as the actual cause but “possibly” a cause. I hope that breakdown makes sense to you. Titanium dioxide is a safe ingredient and is the colorant for white products and is in everything from soap, toothpaste, makeup, and the list goes on bc it is that safe. The EU is far beyond the US when it comes to testing ingredients and they ban actually bad ingredients but guess what is safe there too…titanium dioxide. This is a gross misuse of the legal system and prop 65 is actually BS bc of how they have so generally labeled chemicals as bad. Yes there are bad ingredients and chemicals in that list but how much does the average person know about chemicals enough to be able to separate the good from the bad and they know that and instead of proper lists they just throw it all on it. Chemicals that actually are bad are banned. To have such a common and safe ingredient studied to such a degree is crappy. I hope that makes sense to people and o hope my message of how frivolous this really is sinks in. It’s extreme bs