Maybelline Super Stay Lipstick

July 2014: Upon reaching a settlement agreement, the Leebove case was dismissed with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs’ claims and without prejudice as to the class members’ claims. The terms of the settlement have not been disclosed.

February 2013: Another class-action lawsuit was filed against Maybelline alleging that the company deceptively marketed its SuperStay 24HR Makeup and SuperStay 24HR lipstick as lasting for 24 hours when, in actuality, they do not. (Murdock v. Maybelline, LLC, Case No. 13-at-00095, E.D. CA.)

September 2012: A class-action lawsuit claims that Maybelline deceptively marketed its “Super Stay 14HR Lipstick” and “Super Stay 10HR Stain Gloss” as having “super staying power” that “won’t fade,” when, in reality, the products wear off after only a few hours. (Carol Leebove, et al. v. Maybelline LLC, Case No. 12-cv-07146, S. D. NY.)


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled.

When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled.


Leave a Reply

Back to Top ↑
  • Search Class-Action Tracker

  • Recent Class Actions

  • The Class-Action Tracker is intended to notify consumers about false advertising class-action lawsuits filed around the country, but does not necessarily reflect’s opinion with respect to the lawsuits or disposition of the cases

  • Sign Up for E-mail Updates