Choice Company directory
Bare Minerals — Company research | Choice 0 Choice score Out of 100

Does this score look right?

Updated

What Choice found

A California Proposition 65 notice filed February 27, 2024, by Environmental Health Advocates, Inc. identified Shiseido Americas Corporation and Sephora USA, Inc. as alleged violators. It cited titanium dioxide in airborne, unbound particles of respirable size in bareMinerals Gen Nude Blonzer – Kiss of Spice. This is an allegation, not a reported finding of violation.

Against Health policy
Sources

A September 28, 2023, Law.com report said a class action suit accused bareMinerals’ parent company of selling products in oversized, underfilled containers. The available report excerpt provides no further details about the allegations or the case’s outcome.

Against Corporate conduct
Sources
https://www.law.com/therecorder/2023/09/28/bareminerals-parent-company-accused-of-selling-products-in-oversized-underfilled-containers-in-class-action-suit/
bareMinerals' Parent Company Accused of Selling Products in Oversized, Underfilled Containers in Class Action Suit

On March 20, 2024, Bloomberg Law reported that a federal judge dismissed consumers’ suit against bareMinerals parent Shiseido Americas. Consumers alleged bareMinerals products were deceptively marketed as “clean” and “natural,” but the judge said they had not shown the products they bought contained PFAS and therefore lacked standing to sue.

Against Corporate conduct
Sources
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/shiseido-again-defeats-suit-over-pfas-in-bareminerals-products
Consumers alleging bareMinerals products were deceptively marketed as “clean” and “natural” when they actually contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known as PFAS, failed to show the company’s products contained the substances, a federal judge said dismissing the suit against parent company Shiseido Americas Corp.
About & ownership
Category
Cosmetics
Website
bareminerals.com
Alternatives to Bare Minerals