Victoria's Secret, the well-known lingerie retailer, is being sued by a woman who claims the company's bra had formaldehyde in it and made her "utterly sick." ABC's "Good Morning America" ran a segment Nov. 11 focusing on that 37-year-old Ohio woman, Roberta Ritter.
"Victoria's Secret - certainly one of the world's most recognizable brands," anchor Diane Sawyer said. "And this morning, though, there are questions about what some of the bras might have in them. And did they cause a reaction?"
ABC's Andrea Canning warned viewers "some women say they've experienced very uncomfortable symptoms from the bras like rashes and hives, even permanent scarring ... but the bras are still on the shelves."
Canning portrayed Ritter positively, calling her a "loyal" patron of the company. "Her attorneys say dozens of other women have also contacted them with similar claims involving a number of collections in the brand - many wanting to be part of a potential class-action lawsuit."
But Canning didn't mention Ritter's history of filing lawsuits against large corporations. According to records from the Cuyahoga County Court database, Ritter filed a suit against Palmieri Hair Salons in 1995 for $50,000 and one against DaimlerChrysler (NYSE:DAI) in 2003 for $25,000. Although there were no details about the cases, court records, indicate that lawsuits were dismissed.
"Ritter's bra hasn't been tested yet," Canning said. "But she says her doctor diagnosed her with an allergic reaction that could have been caused by formaldehyde. Whatever it was, she doesn't want this to happen to anyone else."
According to letter sent to ABC News on behalf of the Formaldehyde Council, a trade association for the industry, the bras in question do not contain formaldehyde.
"Apparel made from fully synthetic fibers (such as the bras in your story) do not contain formaldehyde, a fact that is easily confirmed," Jim McCarthy, a Formaldehyde Council representative wrote.
McCarthy told the Business & Media Institute these complaints were rare and litigation fruitless.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Thank you for keeping me
November 17, 2008 - 11:04 ET by NewsbusterbrownThank you for keeping me abreast of this story, Jeff.
You knew someone was going to post it. Might as well be me. :-D
“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.” - Ronald Reagan (1964 Republican Convention)
I'm not going to touch this
November 17, 2008 - 11:05 ET by dboI'm not going to touch this one.
»→ Second that NBB
November 17, 2008 - 11:07 ET by Cool ArrowThere's a groundswell of support for this Tit for Tat
two for the price of one
November 17, 2008 - 14:03 ET by nathanbforrestmaybe she was using some spray foam insulation with extra expansion to give her bust a little boost ..
never look a gift skunk in the tail
It's Class Action Time
November 17, 2008 - 11:15 ET by allanfVictoria's Secret is being set up for a class action lawsuit.
A mere allergic reaction to a product, resulting in no permanent damage is not worth much in Court. Establishing a link between the contact dermatitis and the bra will not be easy. These cases cost money to litigate, and the typical negligence attorney would not invest the money to prosecute the case.
Contact dermatitis is
November 17, 2008 - 16:24 ET by stratmanContact dermatitis is caused by a foreign substance touching the skin. The resulting allergic response is contained to the area of contact and should be fairly uniform in its extent given the amount of exposure.
For example, if the contact dermatitis is due to laundry detergent, the resulting skin problem will be only over the area touched by the clothing worn. Hands, neck, face, scalps, and any other area not covered by the clothing washed in the offending detergent will not be affected. Additionally, if only one area touched by the clothing is affected, but not other areas, then the detergent is not the problem, or, is only part of the problem, as some other substance is causing the dermatitis.
A bra contact dermatitis, traditionally caused by the metal nickel, only affects the skin touching the bra. Unless the patient is using some other substance only in the area of the bra, then the bra is presumed to be the cause of the dermatitis.
Skin allergen testing will likely confirm the cause and provde more evidence for a legal case.
Whether the requirements for a tort can be supported is a different story.
It's Class Action Time
November 17, 2008 - 11:15 ET by allanfVictoria's Secret is being set up for a class action lawsuit.
A mere allergic reaction to a product, resulting in no permanent damage is not worth much in Court. Establishing a link between the contact dermatitis and the bra will not be easy. These cases cost money to litigate, and the typical negligence attorney would not invest the money to prosecute the case.
»→ I agree allanf
November 17, 2008 - 11:23 ET by Cool ArrowAnd I've seen nothing but class action from the VS models.
I am surprise it made her
November 17, 2008 - 11:07 ET by T-Bone MassI am surprise it made her "udderly sick"
»→ Hooterville Hijinks
November 17, 2008 - 11:14 ET by Cool ArrowThis is a first. If mammary serves me well.
Investigative reporting
November 17, 2008 - 11:15 ET by KC MulvilleCan't ABC afford to buy a bra and test it themselves before conveying allegations?
This isn't a report on the bras. It's a report on the he-said-she-said battle of a lawsuit. And if you're going to get involved in a lawsuit and give it publicity (with the not-so-subtle hint that a class action suit is brewing), the least you can do it offer some independent assessment of the facts involved.
As it is, this simply says that a woman is bringing a lawsuit against a big corporation. Big deal. Happens about, what, every thirty seconds or so throughout the country? News ... sheesh ...
She's a boob, ignore
November 17, 2008 - 11:20 ET by Ruths husband BenShe's a boob, ignore her. She's just trying to lift and separate some of Victoria's Secret's money.
...and "push up" her bank
November 17, 2008 - 11:23 ET by Seashell...and "push up" her bank account.
Oh no you didn't!
November 17, 2008 - 11:21 ET by c5thenIn a story on Victoria Sectret's bras, you had the audacity to include quotes like:
"...it and made her "utterly sick."
"And this morning, though, there are questions about what some of the bras might have in them...
Hey, I got the wrong "CHANGE"!
Alan Keyes / Sarah Palin - 2012
The Formaldehyde Council???
November 17, 2008 - 11:25 ET by SickofLibsWhy haven't we heard from FADL? (Formaldehyde Anti-Defamation League)
A story...
November 17, 2008 - 11:40 ET by Prester John....full of falseties intended to butt-ress and inflate her al-leg-gations.
I'm guessing Formal deHyde
November 17, 2008 - 11:41 ET by HockeyKidI'm guessing Formal deHyde is a drag queen who appears alongside Ms. Ritter's Cher impersonation. Ritter has a photo of "Miss" deHyde wearing the bra in question, thus, "See? There's Formal deHyde in that bra." Incontrovertible proof, at least in the eyes of yet another litigation whore.
"Beauty is only skin deep, but liberal's to the bone." - me
Milllions versus dozens
November 17, 2008 - 12:19 ET by CobraMan"Her attorneys say dozens of other women have also contacted them with similar claims involving a number of collections in the brand - many wanting to be part of a potential class-action lawsuit"
So a few dozen women are experiencing some type of malady which they think is the fault of the bras they wear, versus the millions of women that don't, yet this rises to the level of a class-action lawsuit? Excuse me for acting like a boob, but that is udderly foolish!
Obama: My job is above my pay grade
Here we go again with the
November 17, 2008 - 12:10 ET by KillgraveHere we go again with the 60's hags burning their bras in protest. It's a huge pity that most of these broads are butt-ugly, slack-titted gorgons. Otherwise, they would have my full support.
To quote my ex
November 17, 2008 - 13:16 ET by BlondeUpon hearing about the silicone implant implant re-call, said about my, um, double D enhanced step-sister...
"I wouldn't want to be in her bra".
Victoria's Secret
November 17, 2008 - 14:02 ET by JDWQuery the company, there are stories everywhere today on a recent show (pictures included). Yes, I looked.
In context to all of these wackos, remember the war protesters of the '60s who were tossing their bras in the air? Libs never change.
JDW
DAILY WAVE
Is there anything litigators
November 17, 2008 - 15:33 ET by zfIs there anything litigators don't find dangerous? I'm suprised libs claim to love the Earth so much as they also seem to believe that virtually everything found in nature from food to chemicals to carbon dioxide is deadly.
One look at that headline
November 17, 2008 - 17:06 ET by Tim the EnchanterOne look at that headline and I thought to myself: "This is prime-quality bait for a Pun-a-Thon." I was not dissapointed.
People like her who file
November 17, 2008 - 17:19 ET by bigtimerPeople like her who file numerous law-suits need to be made accountable, including lawyers who take up these case to have to pay any costs that others may incur if they lose the case...period.
I am sick of this law-suit happy litigious society, the trial lawyers and environmentalists that have destroyed so many business, especially small businesses need this applied X 10 to them as far as I am concerned.
Get a life Rita.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
Bailout
November 17, 2008 - 17:40 ET by JDWThe news media is going into convulsions at the fact that corporations are spending bailout funds to entertain or for bonuses, how would they feel if attorneys focused on the fat cows?
JDW
DAILY WAVE
A bra-zen, boobery of a
November 17, 2008 - 21:22 ET by semolina_filcherA bra-zen, boobery of a plaintiff, suing Victoria Secrets of its titillating product? Come on now, that udderly petty of you Ms. Ritter. Just let things firm up and go with the flow...
we do live in a society of
November 19, 2008 - 17:26 ET by patmac49we do live in a society of too many lawsuits...but that also hurts legitamate claims against people or companies that are negligent..this is probably just a bad reaction a few women had..but what about legitimate suits..there are people and companies who deserve to be raked over the coals for things they have done to others..my wife just reached a settlement on a suit she had when she broke her wrist on some ice that was not properly salted..we settled for 5,000 after expenses even though the lawyer said we could get 10 times that..but we felt we did not deserve more as she is fine..if more people acted like that and allowed for truely wronged people to get what they deserve,our system would be fine..