A salon-derived bond treatment that became a mass-market product, then the subject of a lawsuit alleging hair loss and scalp injury. The company disputes the claims.
This entry is written from the 3 sources listed at the bottom of the page. The numbers are our editorial estimates drawn from that material, not measurements, and no statistical sample sits behind them.
It depends on how you will use it. 57% would buy it again, which means roughly 43% would not. Litigation and press coverage damaged confidence.
Benefit plateaus for most users, and coverage of the lawsuit is what changed sentiment more than any change in the product.
Litigation and press coverage damaged confidence. Some users report build-up or dryness with frequent use. Benefit is limited for hair that is not chemically damaged.
Worth it for: People with bleached or chemically treated hair; Anyone maintaining colour between salon visits; Users whose stylist recommends it. Think twice if: Your hair is undamaged; You are uneasy about the litigation coverage; You expect a dramatic visible change.
Our reading of how sentiment moves across an ownership period, drawn from the sources below. It is an editorial estimate, not tracked longitudinal data.
| At purchase | 7.8 / 10 |
|---|---|
| First week | 8.2 / 10 |
| One month | 7.1 / 10 |
| Six months | 6.6 / 10 |
| One year | 6.4 / 10 |
| Two years or more | 6.4 / 10 |
Owner reviews move this score. The researched figure stays visible next to it, so you can always see what the sources said before anyone voted.
Leave a review on the live pageEvery complaint and every piece of praise above traces back to these. The summaries are ours; nothing is quoted, and no link, quote or username anywhere on this site is invented.
Coverage of the lawsuit's allegations and the company's response.
Examines the claims and what the evidence shows.
Medical-perspective overview of the allegations.