Hydrafacial Syndeo Class Action: Lawsuit Alleges Design Flaws

Case Overview: A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hydrafacial, alleging that its Syndeo machine suffers from design flaws that cause persistent clogging, excessive noise, and other malfunctions.

Consumers Affected: Individuals and businesses in the United States who purchased a Hydrafacial Syndeo machine.

Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Hydrafacial LLC, a leading provider of aesthetic treatments, is facing a class action lawsuit alleging that it misled consumers about the capabilities of its Syndeo machine, a high-tech skincare device marketed to spas and salons. 

Filed by Sol Tan Tanning & Spa LLC and its owners, Jason and Sonia Davalos, in a California federal court, the lawsuit claims that the Syndeo machine suffers from design flaws that cause persistent clogging, excessive noise, and other malfunctions, rendering it unusable for its intended purpose.

The Davaloses allege that Hydrafacial advertised the Syndeo machine as a revolutionary device that could provide customized facial treatments using cloud-based software and personalized serums. However, they claim that their Syndeo machine, which cost nearly $30,000, began malfunctioning almost immediately after purchase.

Hydrafacial Syndeo Machine Plagued by Design Flaws, Lawsuit Claims

Several design flaws allegedly plague the Syndeo machine, including a serum delivery system prone to clogging, preventing the proper application of serums and disrupting treatment sessions. Additionally, the machine reportedly produces excessive noise and vibration, creating an unpleasant experience for spa clients and disrupting the relaxing spa environment.

Other alleged malfunctions include part non-conformance, difficult bottle insertion, waste and leakage, faulty handpieces and screens, and rattling trays. These malfunctions are widespread, and Hydrafacial has failed to provide a permanent solution, according to the lawsuit. It is alleged that the company has offered replacement machines to some customers, but these replacements also suffer from the same or similar defects.

Hydrafacial Accused of Concealing Syndeo Defects and Failing to Offer Refunds

The plaintiffs claim that Hydrafacial has not offered refunds to customers who purchased the allegedly defective Syndeo machines. The lawsuit also notes that The Beauty Health Company, Hydrafacial's parent company, experienced a significant drop in its market value in late 2023, which the plaintiffs attribute to the costs associated with the Syndeo machine defects.

In November 2023, Beauty Health Company CFO Michael Monahan acknowledged that some spa customers experienced "frequent treatment interruptions and issues" with the Syndeo machines. While Monahan claimed that the company had resolved the problems with the release of a new version of the machine (Syndeo 3.0), the lawsuit alleges this is not true and that the new version continues to exhibit the same defects.

The plaintiffs point to online forums and message boards where Syndeo machine owners, including those with the 3.0 version, continue to report similar malfunctions.

“Indeed, online message boards and fora are replete with postings from affected Syndeo machine purchasers, including owners of the Syndeo 3.0, who continue to experience the same machine failures. Upon information and belief, the replacement machine that Defendants provided Plaintiffs was a Version 3.0, but that machine failed just as badly as the original Syndeo machine Plaintiffs had.”

Class Action Seeks Compensation and Corrective Action for Defective Hydrafacial Syndeo Machines

The lawsuit seeks to represent all individuals and businesses in the United States who purchased a Hydrafacial Syndeo machine. The plaintiffs are seeking various forms of relief, including restitution and damages to compensate for the cost of the defective machines and lost business revenue. 

They also seek an injunction requiring Hydrafacial to disclose the alleged defects to potential customers and to cease selling the Syndeo machines until the defects are resolved. Additionally, they seek corrective advertising to inform the public about the alleged defects.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Davalos et al. v. Hydrafacial LLC et al
• Case Number: 1:24-cv-08073
• Court: U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 

Plaintiffs' Attorneys

• Azra Z. Mehdi (The Mehdi Firm, P.C.)
• Roy A. Katrial (The Katriel Law Firm, P.C.)
• Ralph B. Kalfayan and Ian D. Krupar (The Kalfayan Law Firm, APC)

Have you experienced issues with the Hydrafacial Syndeo machine? Share your experience in the comments below.