Insurance Dispute Lawyer Blog
Infomercials, commonplace in the wee nights for insomniacs, often push the envelope of how groundbreaking and innovative their products are. Using notions of mystery and incredible results, these product “debuts” draw the viewer in by promising results, and features, that commonplace items cannot. While most people would take these promises with a grain of salt, the notion that the product may not even resemble the claims presented is something that seems improbable. In the case of “As Seen on TV” product Smooth Away, this actually is the case as plaintiffs have begun to voice their displeasure of the false reality surrounding this hair removal item.
Smooth Away is a hair removal product that is pitched through the premise that it is a pain-free solution for hygiene purposes. Advertised as an instant and painless manner to tackle shaving needs, Smooth Away has had a very solid sales cycle due to these very attractive promises. The truth, however, behind the New Jersey-based corporation’s product is not so simple. While their claims are smooth, the truth is much more rough and cloudy.
Marketed online and in local stores like Walgreens and others, it is without question that Smooth Away has found a niche in the marketplace. What’s more, sales appear to be solid as buyers, mostly women, are looking for what is being promised: a simple, painless and easy way towards hair removal. The cost of trusting this product, though, is enough to be concerned with.
Current research reveals that the Smooth Away product is not a miraculous new substance that is revolutionary to the world. Instead, it appears to be a rehash of a product many people use everyday. Smooth Away, instead of being composed of the “flex crystals” the company purports, appears to actually be made up of a material texturally similar to 3M sand paper. What’s more, this item purported to be relatively “pain free” often leaves users with burning sensations and chafed skin.
While additional charges against the company involve the fact that their claims of instant hair removal and pain free utilization fall dangerously close to medical ‘promises’ that require FDA approval. All in all, however, the very fact that a hardware store staple is being marketed as a beauty tool is dangerously close to the sort of misleading sales pitch that leads to a lot of distrust. At best this is merely a company taking advantage of fancy language. At worst it’s an example of a company making claims that it cannot substantiate. It is our position that this is a matter for the courts to decide.