Two women have filed lawsuits against Ulta, one of the largest beauty retailers in the United States, claiming that the company repackages and resells beauty products after they have been opened and returned. 
 
 The newest lawsuit, filed by Meghan Devries in Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois, states that Ulta has a routine practice of repackaging and re-sealing products that have been previously purchased, used and returned by customers. It claims that Ulta will return those used products to its shelves to be purchased by other, unsuspecting, customers. 
 
 The complaint states that the company has a limit on how many returned items can be thrown away. 
 
 "Managers at [Ulta's] retail stores are given a quota as to the number of returned items that can be deemed to be 'damaged,'" the lawsuit alleges. 
 
 It goes on to further explain, claiming that if returned items look good enough to resell, they're returned to the shelves so they don't exceed their quota. It goes on to state that the products are put back on the shelves without being labeled as "repackaged" or "previously used." 
 
 The complaint provides examples from former employees who have posted to Twitter about Ulta's alleged routine practice of instructing employees to repackage products and return them to shelves for resale. 
 
 They would resell EVERYTHING. ( makeup , hair care , skincare, fragrance ,hair tools, etc. ) — fatinamxo (@fatinamxo) January 10, 2018 
 
 Devries hopes that her lawsuit changes Ulta's alleged practice of limiting the number of items that can be thrown away. Additionally, it seeks compensation for all customers who bought used products. 
 
 A separate lawsuit with the same claims was filed last month by a California woman. 
 
 “Every customer who has purchased cosmetics at Ulta since this practice began was put at risk of unwittingly purchasing used, unsanitary cosmetics and this risk reduces the desirability and value of all cosmetics sold by Ulta,” the lawsuit states. 
 
 This complaint also sites Twitter user @fantinamxo’s allegations, stating that the Tweets have prompted responses from countless other current and former Ulta employees from all over the country who confirm the practices at the stores where they worked. 
 
 They even put back a USED liquid lipstick, the manager said she would “clean it with alcohol” ( that was the last straw for me ) here is a photo of a lip palette ( exclusive online only ) that was returned and mangers put it back on the shelf to resell ( CLEARLY NOT SANITIZED ) pic.twitter.com/V6TRPOKAHk — fatinamxo (@fatinamxo) January 10, 2018 
 
 The woman who filed the suit, Kimberley Laura Smith-Brown, hopes to form a class that would extend to everyone who purchased cosmetics from Ulta. 
 
 A spokesperson for Bolingbrook-based Ulta told WLS-TV in Chicago the following: 
 
 "Our policy does not allow the resale of used products. We are aware of the lawsuit and intend to vigorously defend against the allegations. The health and safety of Ulta Beauty guests is a top priority and we strive to consistently deliver an optimal experience every time they shop with us." 
 
 Mary Stringini is a Digital Reporter for WFTS. Follow her on Twitter @MaryWFTS. ||||| CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Attorney Thomas Zimmerman, Jr. of the Chicago-based Zimmerman Law Offices filed a nationwide class action suit against Ulta Beauty, Inc. (“Ulta”). The suit alleges Ulta has a routine practice of repackaging and resealing beauty products that have previously been purchased, used and returned by Ulta’s customers, before returning those used products to its shelves to be purchased by other consumers. 
 
 The case, Meghan DeVries v. Ulta Beauty, Inc., was filed on February 8, 2018, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. 
 
 The suit alleges that, for the past several years, managers at Ulta’s retail stores throughout the nation are given a quota as to the number of returned items that can be deemed to be “damaged” and thrown away, and store managers would get lectured by Ulta’s upper management if their stores were over the quota. The suit notes that Ulta received and responded to complaints from customers and employees regarding those practices, but it nevertheless continued its corporate policy and practice of surreptitiously reselling used beauty products. 
 
 Used beauty products—such as mascara, foundation, and shampoo—were almost always placed back on the shelf since it is difficult to tell if they were used, according to the complaint. The suit further alleges that for beauty products that obviously and visibly appeared to be used, Ulta’s employees were instructed to clean those beauty products with cotton swabs to make them look like new, and place them back on Ulta’s store shelves for resale. 
 
 Consumers expect that beauty products are new and unused when purchased from retailers, because, by nature, used beauty products are unsanitary and unhygienic, and place people at a risk of contracting disease. Attorney Tom Zimmerman noted, “The lawsuit cites to an undercover investigation that found used beauty products at Ulta were contaminated with harmful bacteria, including E. coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae, two types of bacteria normally found in the intestinal tract that are expelled with feces, such that people could literally be applying and smearing someone else’s fecal matter directly onto their lips.” Attorney Zimmerman continued, “The investigators also noted that used beauty products can contain the herpes simplex virus—which can survive on the surface of a lipstick tube for up to a week—as well as Staphylococcus aureus, which can cause very serious infections, boils and lesions, especially if you have an open cut on your skin or lips, or it gets in your eyes.” 
 
 The lead plaintiff represents all consumers throughout the United States impacted by Ulta’s actions. The lawsuit seeks damages for the money consumers spent to purchase used beauty products from Ulta, and injunctive relief to force Ulta to stop repackaging used beauty products and reselling them as if they were new. 
 
 A copy of the complaint is available upon request. Attorney Tom Zimmerman will be available for interviews and the lead plaintiff may also be available to speak with the media on a limited basis. ||||| Teen jewelry store Claire's is struggling to compete with stores like Forever 21 that offer jewelry plus clothing. (Photo: Getty Images) 
 
 Corrections and Clarifications: This story has been updated to attribute a portion of the reporting to CNBC 
 
 Claire's, which sells jewelry and accessories targeted to young women, has pulled some of its makeup products off the shelves, due to reports of cancer-producing asbestos. 
 
 Items include the bedazzled rainbow heart makeup set and metallic hot pink glitter makeup. 
 
 The company quietly announced the recall Saturday on its Twitter page, and put out a later statement. "We have taken the precautionary measure of pulling the items in question from sale ... Once we have more information and have the results of the investigation we will take the necessary action. If you have items you wish to return in the interim period we will issue a refund." 
 
 Earlier this year retailer Justice also recalled cosmetics after a Durham, N.C., TV station said the product had toxic substances, including asbestos. 
 
 Exposure to asbestos, once commonly used for building insulation, has been found to lead to certain types of cancers and tumors on internal organs. 
 
 In Providence, R.I., local TV station WPRI reached out to Claire’s after a local law clerk, whose firm specializes in asbestos litigation, has makeup tested from the retailer, and found asbestos. 
 
 “You assume that when you’re purchasing it, it is safe,” Kristiana Warner said. Claire's is based in Pembroke Pines, Fla. 
 
 Claire's hotline is open from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. EDT, 800-804-7194. 
 
 The retailer, which was bought by private equity firm Apollo Global Management in 2007, faces a steep debt load, CNBC reported. 
 
 Read or Share this story: https://usat.ly/2CcN8Sm ||||| Racked is no longer publishing. Thank you to everyone who read our work over the years. The archives will remain available here; for new stories, head over to Vox.com, where our staff is covering consumer culture for The Goods by Vox. You can also see what we’re up to by signing up here. 
 
 More than 200 women in 40 states have joined a class action lawsuit against Wen by Chaz Dean and its infomercial owner Guthy-Renker because they allege that Wen's cleanser is making them go bald, The Daily Beast reports. In addition to the alleged hair loss and scalp injuries, court papers claim that Guthy-Renker blocked comments about hair loss from Wen's Facebook page and removed negative online reviews about the products. 
 
 In nightmare-fueling fashion, BuzzFeed compiled images from women showing their bald spots and toupee-size hair clumps in the drain, allegedly from using celebrity stylist Chaz Dean's sulfate-free cleanser. 
 
 If you haven't heard of Wen, you must've somehow missed Dean's ubiquitous infomercials and marketing promising that his cleanser can replace ordinary shampoo and conditioner. The complaint alleges that "the WEN products at issue contain a caustic ingredient that causes a chemical reaction and damages hair and follicles." Guthy-Renker denies that Wen is any way defective or responsible for hair loss. 
 
 I can't leave my house I'm depressed wen hair products is responsible for my hair loss I have been shampooing and... Posted by Tracie Hashton on Monday, December 7, 2015 
 
 The images are shocking, but The Daily Beast notes that it could be tough for the plaintiffs to prove that Wen is responsible for their hair loss, which could stem from many factors. The first four ingredients in many Wen cleansers are water, glycerin, cetyl alcohol, and cetearyl alcohol, which are commonly used in hair products. Wen does contain a chemical banned in the EU, hydroxycitronella. 
 
 Amy Davis, the Dallas-based attorney and lead counsel for the plaintiffs, said that her firm hired chemists to test Wen. "What we understand about the product and how it causes hair loss is it contains virtually no cleanser," she told told a local CBS station. "It’s like using lotion to wash your hair, so instead of removing the product, when you rinse it off, it just becomes impacted in your hair follicle." 
 
 In between complaints about customer service, auto shipments and inaccurate charges, Facebook comments on Wen's page have been posted by loyal customers and outraged users alike. There's love for Wen — "i use the pomegranate cleansing conditioner. and kid u not, every time i use it and go to the salon for haircut, they tell me that my hair is so healthy," one Facebook commenter wrote — to outright warnings to other consumers — "Went from very thick long hair that would break a pony tail holder to extremely thin brittle hair! ‪#‎Scam‬ I Used it for 1 year with nothing else but their products! Pleeeeease Don't buy this Product if u love your hair like I did!!!" 
 
 The Daily Beast reports that both sides are heading to mediation. "The parties are attempting to settle their differences outside of court and we have agreed to refrain from any extrajudicial statements about the case in the meantime," Davis told The Daily Beast. 
 
 Here's the statement gave BuzzFeed:
– There's nothing like opening up a brand-new makeup kit and glamming it up—though that glamorous feeling may be lost if you find out you're applying makeup someone else already used. That's the gist of a complaint filed in Chicago last month by a California woman who says Ulta repackaged returned cosmetics and placed the items back on store shelves, the Los Angeles Times reports. "Every customer who has purchased cosmetics at Ulta since this practice began was put at risk of unwittingly purchasing used, unsanitary cosmetics," the lawsuit states. Kimberley Laura Smith-Brown of Los Angeles alleges she stocked up on dozens of items from Ulta's Sherman Oaks location over the past six months or so—and then saw whispers on social media that her stash may not have been as pristine as she thought. A Twitter user who said she was an ex-Ulta employee started the hubbub, claiming that when she worked there, her manager would instruct employees to clean returned items with cotton swabs and alcohol, seal them back up, then slip them back on the shelves. And, she said, they "would resell EVERYTHING (makeup, hair care, skincare, fragrance, hair tools, etc.)." Other supposed Ulta employees both refuted and supported her claims. ABC Action News reports a second lawsuit was filed last week in Illinois' Cook County Circuit Court, with plaintiff Meghan DeVries alleging Ulta managers are given a "quota" of how many returned items can be listed as "damaged," per a release. The lawyer in that class action says used cosmetics can contain harmful bacteria like E. coli and even the herpes simplex virus. (A potential concern in children's makeup: asbestos.)