Consumers raised serious concerns about Crepe Erase. Many said the product’s ads overstated results. Others said the billing system created unwanted charges. The issue matters because the case shows how beauty brands must handle marketing and subscription terms. The Crepe Erase lawsuit topic now reflects these concerns and the consequences on buyers who felt misled or overcharged.
Although Crepe Erase remains available for purchase, the dispute around the “Crepe Erase lawsuit” may affect consumers who feel they were misled or overcharged — and it signals that companies in the direct to consumer skincare space may face increased Monitoring.
How the Lawsuit Started
Consumers began complaining that after ordering what they believed was a one-time purchase of the Crepe Erase kit, they found themselves enrolled in a repeated subscription or “replenishment” program. Many alleged that cancelling shipments was difficult, that repeated charges emerged, and that the advertised results (smoother, firmer “crepey” skin) did not match their experience.
At the same time, the self-regulatory body National Advertising Division (NAD) challenged the product’s advertising. In 2019, NAD found that the company behind Crepe Erase — Guthy‑Renker LLC — used claims that were not fully supported by the underlying studies, especially claims of altering “crepey” skin and dramatic transformations. Thus, two core issues emerged: the advertising claims and the billing/subscription practices.
Background of the Crepe Erase Case
Crepe Erase is a skincare system marketed toward women concerned about “crepey” skin — thin, sagging skin often on arms and thighs. It’s one of several beauty products marketed by Guthy-Renker, a major direct-marketing company based in California. The National Advertising Division reviewed the Crepe Erase advertising in 2019 and flagged that some of the claims — for example, “leading anti-aging body care system clinically shown to reverse crepey skin” — were not properly substantiated. NAD recommended the company modify or discontinue certain claims, particularly those implying full removal of the condition.
Meanwhile, consumer review sites and complaint databases began accumulating dozens—or more—of reports about billing issues and subscription models. For example, the Better Business Bureau (BBB) shows many complaints categorized as billing or product/advertising issues for Crepe Erase. Thus, when you hear “Crepe Erase lawsuit,” it refers more to a pattern of individual consumer complaints and possible class-action scenarios rather than a single large court judgment (at least publicly reported to date).
Key Allegations
-
Misleading advertising claims: Consumers allege that Crepe Erase’s ads promised dramatic improvement of crepey skin, including firming and smoothing beyond what independent studies showed. The NAD found that the evidence did not support claims that the system “transformed” skin in the way the ads implied.
-
Automatic subscription billing (“negative option” billing): Many users say that they thought they were ordering a one-time trial or kit, but discovered that they were enrolled in a recurring shipment program with multiple charges. They allege unclear disclosures, confusing cancellation processes, and delayed refunds.
-
Refund and return difficulties: A recurring theme in complaints is that even when users asked to cancel or return products, the refund process was slow or incomplete, and billing continued.
-
Consumer protection/transparency issues: Some legal commentary suggests that the company may have failed to provide sufficiently clear disclosures regarding the subscription terms, automatic shipments, and monthly payments to be charged.
Timeline of the Crepe Erase Lawsuit Case
1. Early Complaints & Consumer Reports
Reports of billing and subscription complaints began surfacing around 2017–2018, via BBB reviews and Trustpilot comments.
2. Company/Industry Response or Public Reaction
In August 2019, the NAD issued a decision regarding the Crepe Erase advertising, finding that some claims lacked sufficient support and recommending modifications.
3. Legal Filings & Court Actions
While no major federal class-action judgment appears publicly reported, a related case: Bunting v. The Body Firm, LLC was filed June 10, 2019 in New York federal court by plaintiff Rasheta Bunting against The Body Firm, LLC and Guthy-Renker. The suit alleged that the website crepeerase.com was not accessible under ADA standards (WCAG 2.1) and sought class certification.
4. Judge Notes / Judicial Comments
No publicly reported judge’s detailed comments on the core marketing/billing allegations have been sourced.
5. Regulatory or Government Actions
While there is no specific FTC action publicly tied only to Crepe Erase, the NAD decision flagged the advertising concerns (a self-regulatory body) and regulatory commentary (industry digest) indicates that marketers of skin-care systems face increased scrutiny.
6. Settlement Timeline
To date, there is no verified public record of a large-scale settlement specifically named “Crepe Erase class action settlement” with disclosed payment amounts. Some consumer information articles state that “settlements were awarded in some cases,” but they do not provide a verifiable court docket or amount.
7. Current Status (Latest Verified Update)
As of October 2025, consumer-protection websites report that no definitive public database lists a final class-action judgment or settlement for Crepe Erase.
Additional Case Details
-
Real-world consumer reviews on Trustpilot show repeated complaints about being charged for shipments they claimed not to have authorized, or difficulties cancelling.
-
On the BBB profile, many complaints cite “billing issues,” “sales & advertising issues,” and problems with returns.
-
The issue touches the broader industry trend of “subscription traps” in direct-to-consumer beauty marketing: offers that look like a one-time purchase but include automatic renewals unless actively cancelled. Many consumer-advice articles (for example, TheCraveMagazine) reference the Crepe Erase case as a warning.
FINAL Result
The Crepe Erase lawsuit topic reflects a mix of advertising issues and subscription disputes. Consumers said the ads promised results that lacked clear support. Many also said they never agreed to repeat charges. The National Advertising Division confirmed weaknesses in the product’s promotional evidence. The billing complaints added more pressure to the brand’s practices.
No national class-action settlement appears in public records. The case still holds value as a consumer-awareness example. Buyers now watch for clear terms, honest claims, and simple cancellation paths. The situation guides the skincare industry toward more transparent marketing. New filings or regulatory steps may shape future standards.