The Ed.
Well-Known Member
I'll be honest from the get-go. I'm a little cynical about this story. If someone genuinely believes that a cream, or thousands of creams, are going to 'turn back the hands of time' then, frankly, I have to question the way their brain works.
We all know that some creams may help but let's face it, if you're still smoking and drinking and tanning and eating badly, you're going to look old and haggard and it won't matter how much cream you slap on your face. That aside, I'm interested to know how you feel about this because if Lorette Perez-Pirio wins her case to sue Procter & Gamble for failing to deliver on their anti-aging promise then it could set us all up for all sorts of wacky and weird problems.
According to the Los Angeles Times, a San Joaquin County woman, Lorette Perez-Pirio is suing P&G because her Olay products - Olay Regenerist Anti-Aging Eye Roller and Regenerating Eye Cream - have not done what they promised and 'reversed the hands of time'.
What a shocker!? Who'd have thought? I mean really! Did she honestly believe that these creams were going to perform the miracle of making her look ten years younger? No, of course she didn't and this is where I get cynical. Whether it's the cash or fifteen minutes of fame, I can only believe that Perez-Pirio has seen an opportunity and gone for it.
Unfortunately, if her case gets legs, she'll set a precedent which means that many results-based products will be shaking in their boots. Think about all the fancy new two-week or more manicures. Will they be affected? Will clients be suing the companies responsible if they chip before they're supposed to? Will it matter if clients aren't performing advised home-care? Will it matter in court if Perez-Pirio sits in the sun all day, smoking cigarettes and drinking vodka (it's a hypothetical...I have no idea how she spends her time!)
Interestingly, according to the LA Times, after taking her claims to court, P&G responded that the products actually, "do not possess the requisite competent and reliable scientific evidence," to back their products' claims. So, is this an advertising standards issue or does Perez-Pirio have the right to sue for being misled?
Who knows? What I do know is that, perhaps aside from surgery, there is no 100% effective way to turn back the hands of time. Eat well, drink well, tan well, exercise well and throw in a batch of good genes and you may get lucky. Otherwise, grow old gracefully and enjoy each line and wrinkle!
Until then...geek on!
The Ed.
We all know that some creams may help but let's face it, if you're still smoking and drinking and tanning and eating badly, you're going to look old and haggard and it won't matter how much cream you slap on your face. That aside, I'm interested to know how you feel about this because if Lorette Perez-Pirio wins her case to sue Procter & Gamble for failing to deliver on their anti-aging promise then it could set us all up for all sorts of wacky and weird problems.
According to the Los Angeles Times, a San Joaquin County woman, Lorette Perez-Pirio is suing P&G because her Olay products - Olay Regenerist Anti-Aging Eye Roller and Regenerating Eye Cream - have not done what they promised and 'reversed the hands of time'.
What a shocker!? Who'd have thought? I mean really! Did she honestly believe that these creams were going to perform the miracle of making her look ten years younger? No, of course she didn't and this is where I get cynical. Whether it's the cash or fifteen minutes of fame, I can only believe that Perez-Pirio has seen an opportunity and gone for it.
Unfortunately, if her case gets legs, she'll set a precedent which means that many results-based products will be shaking in their boots. Think about all the fancy new two-week or more manicures. Will they be affected? Will clients be suing the companies responsible if they chip before they're supposed to? Will it matter if clients aren't performing advised home-care? Will it matter in court if Perez-Pirio sits in the sun all day, smoking cigarettes and drinking vodka (it's a hypothetical...I have no idea how she spends her time!)
Interestingly, according to the LA Times, after taking her claims to court, P&G responded that the products actually, "do not possess the requisite competent and reliable scientific evidence," to back their products' claims. So, is this an advertising standards issue or does Perez-Pirio have the right to sue for being misled?
Who knows? What I do know is that, perhaps aside from surgery, there is no 100% effective way to turn back the hands of time. Eat well, drink well, tan well, exercise well and throw in a batch of good genes and you may get lucky. Otherwise, grow old gracefully and enjoy each line and wrinkle!
Until then...geek on!
The Ed.