“Just For Men” Hair Dye Class Action Lawsuit Filed Over Skin Irritation, Allergic Reactions

  • Written by: Irvin Jackson
  • 1 Comment

Contact A Lawyer

Have A Potential Case Reviewed By An Attorney

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

A class action lawsuit has been filed against the makers of “Just For Men” hair dye products, seeking compensation for anyone who suffered skin irritation, burns, allergic reactions or other injuries within 96 hours of application.

The complaint (PDF) was filed earlier this month in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by Ray Du Boc Ali, Izell McCloud, and Clemon Williams, seeking class action status to pursue damages against the manufacturer, Combe Incorporated.

All three men suffered severe, painful reactions which led to permanent skin discoloration, blisters and other side effects. As a result of the “Just for Men” hair dye reactions, all three indicate that they have been permanently disfigured and scarred.

The lawsuit indicate that “Just For Men” according to FDA rules, an allergy test described on the packaging, which is recommended to test the product on the skin for at least 48 hours, classifies the hair dye as an unadulterated drug.

“Defendants impose upon consumers, with no training, no guide for interpretation, no control over the amount, area or actual extent of product exposure, an inadequate observation time, and no negative control for comparison, the responsibility for determining whether they are having a reaction to the product. Further Defendants do not instruct consumers to consult their physician if they experience the listed symptoms during the 48 hour allergy test,” the lawsuit states. “Defendants also fail to instruct consumers to discontinue the use of systemic antihistamines, cyclosporines and oral steroids several days prior to conducting the open allergy test because use of these medications could cause a false negative result. Moreover, even if such a warning were made, many consumers are unlikely to recognize whether the drugs they are taking belong to these pharmaceutical classes, or further it may not be safe for them to discontinue these medications.”

The “Just for Men” lawsuit claims that the problems come from the use of a chemical known as p-phenylenediamine (PPD), which has been known to be an irritant and cause serious injuries since the 1930s. Darker dyes contain more PPD than other types, which results in men of color being more susceptible to irritation and allergic reactions due to the higher amounts of the chemical in products targeted at them, according to the lawsuit.

Just For Men Risks

The concerns about reports of Just for Men allergic reactions gained nationwide attention following a 2012 report by, which noted that it was receiving a number of new complaints involving skin irritation, itching, blisters and chemical burns following Just for Men application.

Consumer Affairs has received more than 400 reports of burns or allergic reactions to “Just for Men” since the group first warned about the risk of allergic reactions in 2012.

Many of the men report using Just for Men dye for years without any issues, which some some suggest may raise questions about whether the manufacturer’s suggestion that users do a “patch test” on a small part of the body may be useless.

Additional Just For Men lawsuits are likely to be filed in the coming months, as a number of individuals throughout the U.S. have already contacted lawyers after suffering injuries that were reportedly caused by the hair and beard dye.

Tags: , , , , , ,

1 comment

  1. Ryan Reply

    I’ve been using the product now 1 year I’ve noticed that I’ve gotten blisters on the side of my chin about four times I never related it to just for men but now it all makes sense

  • Share Your Comments

  • Have Your Comments Reviewed by a Lawyer

    Provide additional contact information if you want an attorney to review your comments and contact you about a potential case. This information will not be published.
  • NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.