RevitaLash and RevitaBrow are popular “conditioning” serums sold by Athena Cosmetics, marketed to enhance the appearance of eyelashes and eyebrows—products that sit in a fast-growing beauty category where consumers often expect visible results but may not realize certain formulas can cause irritation or other adverse reactions around the sensitive eye area. In this case, purchasers alleged that the company’s labeling and advertising omitted material information about potential risks and side effects tied to an ingredient in the serums, meaning shoppers couldn’t make fully informed choices at the point of sale. The class action was filed to seek compensation and changes for consumers who bought covered products in the U.S. between January 1, 2017 and December 29, 2025, arguing they paid for products without adequate disclosure of safety-related information. Athena denies wrongdoing and maintains the products are safe and compliant, and the court has not ruled on liability; nonetheless, the parties agreed to a proposed $4.17 million settlement to avoid the cost and uncertainty of continued litigation. If approved, eligible buyers can submit a claim by April 20, 2026 for either cash (amount depends on claim volume and approved deductions) or a nonexpiring $110 voucher for RevitaLash.com, with limits and possible proof-of-purchase requirements depending on how many claims are filed. Beyond this dispute, the lawsuit reflects a broader trend of consumer class actions targeting cosmetics and personal-care brands for “failure to disclose” safety information, especially when products are used near the eyes and marketed with performance-forward claims. The industry context matters because most cosmetics in the U.S. are regulated under the FDA’s framework for cosmetics (with different rules than drugs), and while companies are generally responsible for product safety and truthful labeling, the level of premarket review is limited—so litigation often becomes the battleground for what counts as a “material” risk that must be disclosed, a dynamic echoed by the related RevitaLash cases identified in federal courts in California and Illinois.