Morphe x Jaclyn Hill Vault Collection: Re-used used packaging or destroyed palettes?

Saturday, August 18, 2018


Jaclyn is causing a stir on Twitter and maybe Morphe should tell her to shut up because she might get the US FDA and US FTC on them if someone files a complaint over these two Tweets.



This Tweet of hers seems to make it seem that Morphe took the packages, opened them up, removed the pans from the palettes and replaced the bad product with good product. I hope she clarifies this statement because if this is accurate and true.... I'll get into that below.


So which is it? Let me address a couple of things and I'll have to bring up Ipsy, Guthey-Renker, Meaningful Beauty, and X Out into this to set the stage.

A few years ago, Ipsy sent out in one of their monthly subscription bags a sample of X Out's primer. The primer was in a small tube with a label on it rather than it being printed directly on the tube. Someone peeled their label off and discovered that the tube was for a mask from the Meaningful Beauty by Cindy Crawford line. Both items are distributed by Guthey-Renker.

So, of course, doing what I do, I contacted the company and the FDA. Long story short. I was told by GR that they reused empty, new, and unused tubes from the Crawford line for XOut and labeled it accordingly. They sent me a full-size tube of the mask to compare to the primer sent out by Ipsy (which I was sent as well and had in my bag). The two products were indeed different with one being a mask (the tube sent to me from her line) and one was a primer (from XOut).

The FDA also responded to my inquiries and said that companies ARE ALLOWED to use packaging for other products on the following conditions (and I'm paraphrasing here):

  1. The packaging is new, unused, and empty.
  2. The packaging is labeled properly including batch codes updated.

So, again, which is it? Did they use new and empty packaging that was already existing or did they empty out existing product to replace those pans or was it sent back and destroyed?

Now, I'm not a drama blog or a drama channel but this is industry news and I do cover that. Unfortunately, it seems like I'm going to be covering this for a while because the mess is only starting up so I do apologize for the series of posts about this issue but I'm covering it since it does affect a lot people being deceived and bad product is being sold which may affect ULTA if ULTA doesn't have ironclad return policies like Sephora.

0 comments

Copyright and Fair Use Disclaimer

Information shared on the website (e.g. blog) is written by me based on public information and/or my opinion. Photos taken by me may not be used for commercial purpose but may be used by not-for-profit entities and individuals under the Fair Use clause in the Copyright Act of 1976. If information and/or photos obtained from this website and used elsewhere please provide a link back to this site as the citation.
 
Photos not taken by me and other information are used under the "Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use." All rights reserved to the respective owners.
 
False copyright claims filed against my website and/or social media channels is not only perjury and is illegal but also punishable by law.
 

Swagbucks

Join Swagbucks!