Saturday, February 19, 2011
Personally Identifying Information/FTC Followup
I received an email today from a person regarding this post. To review, on February 4, 2011 GlitterSniffer Cosmetics asked to hire one of their fans via the Facebook Fan Page to access the company gmail account, gather almost 2,000 customer names and addresses, place it in a blank document and email it back to the company. The company then addressed concerns regarding the release of personally identifying information without consent by stating that it was a 4 year employee who actually did the task. Ironically, they declined to name the employee. They also provided no information as to the use of this information.
I was contacted today by the person who actually did access the information. They wish to remain anonymous. The person is not employed by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics but has done work like this in the past. They are unsure what the information would be used for, apart from it being for some type of mailing list. They assured me that they no longer have the information, did not save a copy of it, and only sent it to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
This information contradicts what GlitterSniffer Cosmetics states happened in this situation. Additionally, it should be noted that this appears to be a common practice with the company. Some GS Admins of the private GS Group stepped down yesterday and are no longer supporting the company. Here is what one of them had to say regarding the free sample offer recently posted by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics:
At my count there were at least 5 known Admins as of yesterday. These women are not employed by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics. They are simply supporters who also take (or took in some cases) a role in administrating a fan group.
I will be contacting the FTC Tuesday with this new information, as Monday is a holiday.
I was contacted today by the person who actually did access the information. They wish to remain anonymous. The person is not employed by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics but has done work like this in the past. They are unsure what the information would be used for, apart from it being for some type of mailing list. They assured me that they no longer have the information, did not save a copy of it, and only sent it to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics.
This information contradicts what GlitterSniffer Cosmetics states happened in this situation. Additionally, it should be noted that this appears to be a common practice with the company. Some GS Admins of the private GS Group stepped down yesterday and are no longer supporting the company. Here is what one of them had to say regarding the free sample offer recently posted by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics:
At my count there were at least 5 known Admins as of yesterday. These women are not employed by GlitterSniffer Cosmetics. They are simply supporters who also take (or took in some cases) a role in administrating a fan group.
I will be contacting the FTC Tuesday with this new information, as Monday is a holiday.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Artfire Followup
I apologize for the lack of posts. I had a situation arise that required my attention. I have much to share over the next few days, but will start with this.
I emailed Artfire a few days ago at service@artfire.com. I was not the only one. There were several replies today, all with the same information.
In my email I outlined the various Artfire TOS violations that may be occurring in GlitterSniffer Cosmetics shop.
The email contained a confidentiality disclaimer. The disclaimer is very binding so I will not reiterate it here, but I will say it differed from the reply to my previous email about GlitterSniffer Cosmetics in one very significant way, and I am satisfied with their response.
Those looking for the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Artfire will find it empty. To curb speculation it should be noted that the company announced it would be closing to catch up on orders.
They were unable to meet their stated turnaround time of 5 business days:
The turnaround time is now 8-10 days. This was announced via the company's Facebook Fan Page.
According to the FTC Mail and Order Telephone Merchandise Rule, which also covers internet sales:
I emailed Artfire a few days ago at service@artfire.com. I was not the only one. There were several replies today, all with the same information.
In my email I outlined the various Artfire TOS violations that may be occurring in GlitterSniffer Cosmetics shop.
The email contained a confidentiality disclaimer. The disclaimer is very binding so I will not reiterate it here, but I will say it differed from the reply to my previous email about GlitterSniffer Cosmetics in one very significant way, and I am satisfied with their response.
Those looking for the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Artfire will find it empty. To curb speculation it should be noted that the company announced it would be closing to catch up on orders.
They were unable to meet their stated turnaround time of 5 business days:
The turnaround time is now 8-10 days. This was announced via the company's Facebook Fan Page.
According to the FTC Mail and Order Telephone Merchandise Rule, which also covers internet sales:
If, after taking the customer’s order, you learn that you cannot ship within the time you stated or within 30 days, you must seek the customer’s consent to the delayed shipment. If you cannot obtain the customer’s consent to the delay -- either because it is not a situation in which you are permitted to treat the customer’s silence as consent and the customer has not expressly consented to the delay, or because the customer has expressly refused to consent -- you must, without being asked, promptly refund all the money the customer paid you for the unshipped merchandise.It is not clear if GlitterSniffer Cosmetics has contacted its customers to gain this consent, but at least one consumer was not satisfied:
2/18/11 ETA: Added Label "Complaints I Filed"
Sunday, February 13, 2011
More Comparable Colors
I posted the other day in regards to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics previous practice of repackaging. Again, I am not going to debate the ethics of this practice nor am I stating unequivocally that it is still taking place, but I would like to present additional comparisons to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics recent, current, and soon to be offered products. This post is for informational and comparative purposes only and should not be construed as an endorsement of any company linked herein.
In terms of repackaging the company has stated that it was a practice in the past but that it now blends its own pigments. Information showing what appears to be past repackaging is as follows:
Here is an Etsy listing showing what appears to be sample bags of mica. The empty mixing bags are how GS states they mix their colors. If you compare the purple bag in the listing to the sample bag of Grape POP! in the repackaging post they seem to be the same. The listing also appears to show some of the neon pinks which have now been recalled as unsafe for eye use (when in fact they are not approved for cosmetic use at all). Though at the time of this sale these colors were not recalled, GlitterSniffer Cosmetics has always maintained they disclosed in all listings that the neons were for general cosmetic use only. This is disclosed nowhere in the listing and it is being sold specifically as 'cosmetic eye shadow'.
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is currently selling their products as "100% pure pigment". As pointed out in the previous post their own ingredients list gives pause to that assertion, as it lists Magnesium Stearate among ingredients it "may contain". MS is a base additive and not a pigment, making these claims not entirely correct.
All that being said here is a list of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics products and their comparable micas or recipes (which are publicly available for anyone to use).
Delirious is comparable to Colorana Blue.
Saturday Night is comparable to 24 Karat Gold.
Seuss White is comparable to Silver Micro Fine Glitter and Fairy Dust 004.
Seuss Gold is comparable to Gold Micro Fine Glitter.
Rock Candy is comparable to Manganese Violet (Left most pigment in the picture).
Hangover is comparable to Dark Brown Oxide.
Rings of Saturn is comparable to Orange Oxide.
Tsunami is comparable to Blue Ice.
Jabberwocky is comparable to Antique Silver.
Illegal Presence is comparable to Brown #3.
Red Rum is comparable to Rouge Flambe Red.
Tear Drops is comparable to Colorana DARK Blue (with Holla Glow Glitter).
Zombie Girl is comparable to Lotsa Lime.
Harajuku Collection Coral is comparable to True Coral.
The Unicorn Collection Blue, White, and Black are comparable to Soft Blue, Pearl White, and Soft Black.
The retired Christmas Lights Collection and the as yet unreleased Video Game Collection are comparable to most of the Trues Collection (all, except for Red/Orange, which is not eye approved).
This list is not comprehensive as I only researched the first page on Artfire and select colors and collections. Again, these are only comparable micas and recipes, and the only verified mica that was definitively used, as per an email with GlitterSniffer Cosmetics on January 10, 2011, is the coral in the Harajuku Collection.
Though the list is comparative and informational only it would appear to be quite easy to substitute other micas for what the company is selling, is planning on selling, and has sold in the past at a fraction of the cost.
2/13/11, ETA: Fixed the link for 24 Karat Gold.
2/14/11 ETA:
A member of the GS Complaints Facebook Page who also is a formulator states that Tear Drops may be closer in color to True Blue with Holla Glow Glitter. She also states that Seuss Gold may also contain Gold Sparks, in addition to the Gold Micro Fine Glitter.
In terms of repackaging the company has stated that it was a practice in the past but that it now blends its own pigments. Information showing what appears to be past repackaging is as follows:
 | |
| This photo shows sample mica bags in the top right, next to filled pots that appear to be the same color as the samples. |
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is currently selling their products as "100% pure pigment". As pointed out in the previous post their own ingredients list gives pause to that assertion, as it lists Magnesium Stearate among ingredients it "may contain". MS is a base additive and not a pigment, making these claims not entirely correct.
All that being said here is a list of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics products and their comparable micas or recipes (which are publicly available for anyone to use).
Delirious is comparable to Colorana Blue.
Saturday Night is comparable to 24 Karat Gold.
Seuss White is comparable to Silver Micro Fine Glitter and Fairy Dust 004.
Seuss Gold is comparable to Gold Micro Fine Glitter.
Rock Candy is comparable to Manganese Violet (Left most pigment in the picture).
Hangover is comparable to Dark Brown Oxide.
Rings of Saturn is comparable to Orange Oxide.
Tsunami is comparable to Blue Ice.
Jabberwocky is comparable to Antique Silver.
Illegal Presence is comparable to Brown #3.
Red Rum is comparable to Rouge Flambe Red.
Tear Drops is comparable to Colorana DARK Blue (with Holla Glow Glitter).
Zombie Girl is comparable to Lotsa Lime.
Harajuku Collection Coral is comparable to True Coral.
The Unicorn Collection Blue, White, and Black are comparable to Soft Blue, Pearl White, and Soft Black.
The retired Christmas Lights Collection and the as yet unreleased Video Game Collection are comparable to most of the Trues Collection (all, except for Red/Orange, which is not eye approved).
This list is not comprehensive as I only researched the first page on Artfire and select colors and collections. Again, these are only comparable micas and recipes, and the only verified mica that was definitively used, as per an email with GlitterSniffer Cosmetics on January 10, 2011, is the coral in the Harajuku Collection.
Though the list is comparative and informational only it would appear to be quite easy to substitute other micas for what the company is selling, is planning on selling, and has sold in the past at a fraction of the cost.
2/13/11, ETA: Fixed the link for 24 Karat Gold.
2/14/11 ETA:
A member of the GS Complaints Facebook Page who also is a formulator states that Tear Drops may be closer in color to True Blue with Holla Glow Glitter. She also states that Seuss Gold may also contain Gold Sparks, in addition to the Gold Micro Fine Glitter.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
What's in a Name?
I have debated this post for a few days. On the one hand it speaks specifically to the fact that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics does not practice what it preaches, on the other it catches a lot of innocent handmade sellers up in a situation not of their own making. I am very cognizant of the fact that the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics situation has cast a bad light not only on indie cosmetics in general, but could possibly effect handmade sellers negatively as a whole. Though I personally have no issue continuing to purchase handmade, and do so quite regularly still, I am well aware that this situation has made people gun shy. For that reason I will not be including supporting links to the products I mention though that has been my practice thus far. I will also be removing any identifying information for these sellers. These wonderful artisans do not deserve any further identification with GlitterSniffer Cosmetics, especially since they had nothing to do with the company's choice to sell unapproved products, and simply lent their names in good faith to a company they felt they could trust. They are just another in a long line of innocent victims and I do not wish to cause them any further issues.
And with that preamble out of the way, the following was posted to the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Facebook Fan Page on February 4, 2011:
It does not seem to be the case that someone was trying to use GlitterSniffer Cosmetics name to make money. The crafter in question made it very clear via the GlitterSniffer Complaints FaceBook Page that she was no longer associated with GS, had forgotten about the listings, had edited them to remove the association, and that the original intent of the listings was to link to GS and help drive business to them.
But GlitterSniffer Cosmetics should know all about using links to drive business. It's something they have practiced themselves for years. From the Etsy forums, dated February 11, 2009:
There were 15 pages of responses to this offer, with much discussion of link trading. This shows that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics had no issues with soliciting others for marketing purposes, in effect using others names in order to make money. Some selected listings:
Please note that most of these colors were not "inspired" by these shops. They were already made and simply named for the sellers. For the most part GlitterSniffer Cosmetics did not know any of these sellers until soliciting them for the use of their names, despite their claims to the contrary in the listings. There are many others I have not listed.
At least three of these products have since been recalled as being unsafe for eye use.
It is debatable at this point if use of the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics name would be of any value to anyone currently selling handmade, but this certainly gives pause to the assertion that crafters use their name to increase sales, when cross promotion is not only something GlitterSniffer Cosmetics participated in, but actively sought out in the past.
This is, of course, in addition to the numerous trademarked names they have used, and are currently planning on using, to market their products.
And with that preamble out of the way, the following was posted to the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics Facebook Fan Page on February 4, 2011:
It does not seem to be the case that someone was trying to use GlitterSniffer Cosmetics name to make money. The crafter in question made it very clear via the GlitterSniffer Complaints FaceBook Page that she was no longer associated with GS, had forgotten about the listings, had edited them to remove the association, and that the original intent of the listings was to link to GS and help drive business to them.
But GlitterSniffer Cosmetics should know all about using links to drive business. It's something they have practiced themselves for years. From the Etsy forums, dated February 11, 2009:
There were 15 pages of responses to this offer, with much discussion of link trading. This shows that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics had no issues with soliciting others for marketing purposes, in effect using others names in order to make money. Some selected listings:
Please note that most of these colors were not "inspired" by these shops. They were already made and simply named for the sellers. For the most part GlitterSniffer Cosmetics did not know any of these sellers until soliciting them for the use of their names, despite their claims to the contrary in the listings. There are many others I have not listed.
At least three of these products have since been recalled as being unsafe for eye use.
It is debatable at this point if use of the GlitterSniffer Cosmetics name would be of any value to anyone currently selling handmade, but this certainly gives pause to the assertion that crafters use their name to increase sales, when cross promotion is not only something GlitterSniffer Cosmetics participated in, but actively sought out in the past.
This is, of course, in addition to the numerous trademarked names they have used, and are currently planning on using, to market their products.
Friday, February 11, 2011
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics and Artfire
GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is currently selling their products via Artfire. I wanted to take a closer look at what exactly the company is offering.
First of all, all their pigments are listed as 100% Pure Pigment. A quick look at their ingredients list shows that this is simply not the case.
Magnesium Stearate is a base additive used to aid in slip and adhesion. Its inclusion means these are not 100% Pure Pigment. It should be noted that per Artfire TOS any of these products can be flagged and removed for "Misleading Pic/Title".
According to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics own Artfire Policies all shipments include delivery confirmation.
There is also the issue of when exactly the company was founded. According to the Artfire Bio it was 2008, but the recall information is for products from 2006 and on. A full examination of this phenomena may be found here.
Then there is this listing, the Infamous Grab Bag Preorder. Besides the fact that it also violates Artfire TOS as it includes items which are not handmade (Nyx Bases and brushes) it is a preorder. It also violates Artfire TOS to sell items you do not currently have in hand. This item could also be flagged and removed.
Additionally, the Grab Bags have no stated turnaround time. Rather, customers are asked to be patient in waiting for delivery.
First of all, all their pigments are listed as 100% Pure Pigment. A quick look at their ingredients list shows that this is simply not the case.
Magnesium Stearate is a base additive used to aid in slip and adhesion. Its inclusion means these are not 100% Pure Pigment. It should be noted that per Artfire TOS any of these products can be flagged and removed for "Misleading Pic/Title".
According to GlitterSniffer Cosmetics own Artfire Policies all shipments include delivery confirmation.
However, in the individual listings it states they do not provide tracking information and if you wish to have this information you must email and specifically request it.
There is also the issue of when exactly the company was founded. According to the Artfire Bio it was 2008, but the recall information is for products from 2006 and on. A full examination of this phenomena may be found here.
Then there is this listing, the Infamous Grab Bag Preorder. Besides the fact that it also violates Artfire TOS as it includes items which are not handmade (Nyx Bases and brushes) it is a preorder. It also violates Artfire TOS to sell items you do not currently have in hand. This item could also be flagged and removed.
Additionally, the Grab Bags have no stated turnaround time. Rather, customers are asked to be patient in waiting for delivery.
This, despite their own stated policy that all orders would be shipped within 5 business days.
Just a quick glance at Artfire shows a multitude of contradictions and possible TOS violations, in addition to the labeling issues and sales of products that are not what they claim to be. One would think that given the company history they would be more apt to follow every rule to the letter and ensure that what they are advertising is what they are indeed selling but that would not appear to be the case.
Others Experiences
An update and more stories about GlitterSniffer Cosmetics from others. Again, all identifying information has been removed. Thank you to everyone for sharing.
This is an updated photo of the first story related here. She is still suffering effects months after discontinuing use of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics:
Another story detailing ill effects, including a hospital stay. Some of the effects were from usage of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics soap:
This is an updated photo of the first story related here. She is still suffering effects months after discontinuing use of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics:
Another story detailing ill effects, including a hospital stay. Some of the effects were from usage of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics soap:
I thought that I'd share what happened to my girlfriend and I concerning glittersniffer. My girlfriend was a fan of theirs for awhile before she bought a huge amount of colours, and when they arrived half of them were missing. I guess after everything we should be grateful for getting anything! Well, my girlfriend is allergic to carmine and is vegan, so therefor she asked beforehand if it contained any and if it was so, and she was told that no there was no carmine in the colors she was receiving and that they were indeed vegan and cruelty free. So she took her word on it and bought it. Immediately after applying her new eyeshadow, her eyes were swollen shut and her face was puffy, she ended up spending several days in the hospital being treated. The eyeshadow obviously did contain carmine to trigger such a severe reaction and obviously was not vegan. I myself had an infection after using glittersniffer cosmetics as well as a rash from one of their soaps. After complaining very politely I might add, and asking for a refund we were pretty much told no and that that was the risk we took of buying makeup offline and such. I can do my best to see if I can find the emails. The only good thing that I can say is that paypal has deemed in my favour of a refund.From an email January 24, 2011:
A refund denial:I just wanted to let you know that I have basically been a lurker of the fb page and the blog. Seeing all this go down made me contact paypal today regarding a possible refund from my November 7, 2010 purchase of the Pressure Sensitive Collection from Lela. I have had some issues with burning of my eyes, but nothing like some of the other women have experienced. You can also literally see the pieces of glitter in the pots. It kind of reminded me of glitter from a craft store that you use for art projects. Some of the pots are sealed with a sticky thing over them, some are not.The rep I spoke to was also named redacted. I called at 1:20pm eastern time to the (402) 935-2050 phone number. She had told me that they will definitely file my dispute/claim and if enough complaints were issued, there is a good chance everyone will be refunded.
On Dec 28, 2010, at 6:26 AM, redacted wrote:
i just want to know when i can get my refund for the items in the pictures.
From: Lela Warren <glittersniffercosmetics@gmail.com
To: redacted
Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 1:44:22 PM
Subject: Re: picture of items that need to be refunded
redacted,
We are anticipating a 3-6 week time frame to complete the refund process.
XOXO
On Dec 28, 2010, at 3:32 PM, redacted wrote:
why was it last week i would have it by this week and now its 3-6 weeks?
______________________________
From: Lela Warren <glittersniffercosmetics@gmail.com>
To: redacted
Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 4:34:00 PM
Subject: Re: picture of items that need to be refunded
redacted ,
If you would like an in depth explanation, please call me. I cannot refund
anyone until my PayPal is unlocked. That is not a process I can speed up.
Sent from my iPad
On Dec 28, 2010 6:55 PM, redacted wrote:
how can i call without a phone number? and i dont understand how you make so
much money off of the pigments that you sell but you cant refund anyone?? i know
how much it cost to make and distribute makeup.. i was looking into making my
own...
From: Lela Warren <glittersniffercosmetics@gmail.com>
To: redacted
Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 6:58:39 PM
Subject: Re: picture of items that need to be refunded
Here is my number, call me.
3133034780
On Dec 28, 2010, at 7:23 PM, redacted wrote:when is the best time to call? im busy and cant stop my world to call why cant i just get an explanation on here?
From: Lela Warren <glittersniffercosmetics@gmail.com>
To: redacted
Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 7:26:25 PM
Subject: Re: picture of items that need to be refunded
You can call now. I can take your call anytime tonight. If you want to talk about this, you can call me.
On Dec 28, 2010, at 8:05 PM, redacted wrote:i can not call... i dont have time i only have time to check my e-mail once a day im getting ready to have a baby in 3 weeks so im busy all day.
From: Lela Warren <glittersniffercosmetics@gmail.com>
To: redacted
Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 8:13:36 PM
Subject: Re: picture of items that need to be refunded
If you don't have the time to call me I won't have time to investigate this any further and I'll have to deny your request for a refund.
Terms of Service
I contacted Ebay yesterday about GlitterSniffer Cosmetics sale of this listing. Ebay has strict terms about what may or may not be sold on the site. Per their Terms of Service recalled items may not be sold on the site.
Here is a screenshot of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics offsite linking in an Etsy feedback from late last year:
Per the Do's and Don'ts of Etsy:
Just to review, it appears that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics has violated Ebay Terms of Service with this listing. We also know that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is no longer using Paypal due to a Terms of Service violation. GlitterSniffer Cosmetics clearly violated Etsy's offsite link policy. Two listings on Artfire, since flagged and removed, violated TOS.
Every site that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics utilizes has clear guidelines which must be followed. It would seem that in addition to FDA ingredients and labeling guidelines GlitterSniffer Cosmetics simply disregards this information, though it is readily available to them.
Products that are currently subject to a recall but the sale of the product is not prohibited by law or regulation, as long as the listing includes the recall information.The items sold in this lot contained ingredients for GlitterSniffer Cosmetics recalled items (from the listing: We are offering them in a bulk listing because we are currently not shipping orders while we play catch up and put some new company rules in place, along with colors we will no longer be selling.) in addition to others. No where in the listing is the recall listed. In fact the listing specifically states that it can be added to mascara or brow gel, and that the lot will perform as an eye shadow "in the sense that you may put them on your eyes".
Here is a screenshot of GlitterSniffer Cosmetics offsite linking in an Etsy feedback from late last year:
Per the Do's and Don'ts of Etsy:
You may not use Etsy to direct shoppers to another online selling venue to purchase the same items as listed in your Etsy shop, as this may constitute fee avoidance. This includes posting links/URLs or providing information sufficient to locate the other online venue(s).Per Artfire Terms of Service an Artisan may not sell:
Any item that which in whole or in part is subject to a recall.Glittersniffer Cosmetics unlabeled "Randoms" may fall into this catagory as they do not meet FDA regulations for labeling, could be called misbranded, and as such be subject to recall. The "Random" listing was flagged today and removed from Artfire. This is in addition to a listing flagged and earlier this week which was removed as it included brushes and NYX bases which are not Handmade and therefore violate Artfore TOS. The other listings on Artfire are also questionable because it does not appear as yet that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is complying with FDA labeling guidelines.
Just to review, it appears that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics has violated Ebay Terms of Service with this listing. We also know that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics is no longer using Paypal due to a Terms of Service violation. GlitterSniffer Cosmetics clearly violated Etsy's offsite link policy. Two listings on Artfire, since flagged and removed, violated TOS.
Every site that GlitterSniffer Cosmetics utilizes has clear guidelines which must be followed. It would seem that in addition to FDA ingredients and labeling guidelines GlitterSniffer Cosmetics simply disregards this information, though it is readily available to them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
