The Company is a party to various lawsuits, claims, and other legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of business, including but not limited to commercial disputes, product liability, and employment related matters. In addition, the Company may bring claims or initiate lawsuits from time to time against various third parties with respect to matters arising out of the ordinary course of the Company’s business, including but not limited to commercial and intellectual property related matters.
For the matters we disclose that do not include an estimate of the amount of loss or range of losses, such an estimate is not possible or is immaterial, and we may be unable to estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from the application of non-monetary remedies. Until the final resolution of such matters, if any of our estimates and assumptions change or prove to have been incorrect, we may experience losses in excess of the amounts recorded, which could have a material effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.
Except as otherwise disclosed below, we believe that none of our pending lawsuits, claims, and other proceedings are expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, management’s judgment may prove materially inaccurate, and such judgment is made subject to the known uncertainties of litigation.
Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC
On December 14, 2020, Hydrafacial LLC (“Hydrafacial”) filed a complaint (the “Cartessa Complaint”) against Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC (“Cartessa”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the “New York Court”), captioned Edge Systems LLC v. Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-6082 (the “Cartessa Case”), for patent infringement arising from Cartessa’s sale of Cartessa’s hydrodermabrasion system that Hydrafacial alleged has infringed five of Hydrafacial’s patents on its device. Hydrafacial narrowed its allegation in the Cartessa Complaint to assert infringement of just four of its patents. On September 15, 2022, the New York Court granted Hydrafacial’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Unclean Hands and denied Cartessa’s Motion for Summary Judgment of non-infringement on three of the four patents-in-suit. On June 6, 2023, the New York Court granted Hydrafacial’s Motion for Summary Judgment of No Invalidity of the fourth patent-in-suit and granted Cartessa’s Motion for Summary Judgment of non-infringement of that same patent. The parties agreed to dismiss the remaining claims without prejudice so that Hydrafacial can appeal the New York Court’s grant of Cartessa’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Final judgment was entered on October 15, 2024.
On October 8, 2024, Hydrafacial filed an appeal in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals challenging the New York Court’s final judgment and summary judgment decision of Cartessa’s non-infringement regarding the fourth patent-in-suit. On November 13, 2024, Cartessa filed a cross-appeal challenging the New York Court’s final judgment and summary judgment decision of granting Hydrafacial’s motion for summary judgment of no invalidity regarding the fourth patent-in-suit. The parties exchanged their opening briefs on March 12, 2025 and June 20, 2025. Hydrafacial expects the hearing for this appeal to be scheduled in late 2026.
On June 11, 2024, Hydrafacial filed a complaint against Cartessa and its foreign manufacturer, Eunsung Global Corp (“Eunsung”), in the United States International Trade Commission. A Notice of Institution of Investigation was issued on July 11, 2024, and the investigation was assigned investigation number 337-TA-1408 (the “ITC Cartessa Matter”). In the ITC Cartessa Matter, Hydrafacial asserted that Cartessa and Eunsung infringe Hydrafacial’s U.S. Patent No. 11,865,287, which relates to hydrodermabrasion systems but was not asserted in the Cartessa Case. Eunsung consented to an exclusion order during the term of the Hydrafacial patent-in-suit. In the ITC Cartessa Matter, the parties concluded the evidentiary hearing on April 9-15, 2025. The parties filed post-hearing briefs in May 2025 and the judge issued an initial determination on August 26, 2025, finding that the patent is valid and infringed by Cartessa’s products. The initial determination recommended an exclusion order and cease and desist order against Cartessa that would prevent importation or sale of Cartessa’s hydrodermabrasion systems within the United States. The Commission issued its final determination on March 23, 2026, confirming infringement by Cartessa’s products and validity of Hydrafacial’s patent. On March 26, 2026, Cartessa filed a petition for review by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. On June 1, 2026, Cartessa filed a motion to dismiss the appeal and vacate the final determination because the ’287 Patent expired. Hydrafacial expects this appeal to be dismissed by the end of 2026.
35
Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC - Second Complaint
On June 14, 2024, Hydrafacial filed a complaint (the “Second Cartessa Complaint”) against Cartessa in the New York Court, captioned HydraFacial LLC v. Cartessa Aesthetics, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-04253 (the “Second Cartessa Case”), for patent infringement arising from Cartessa’s sale of Cartessa’s hydrodermabrasion system that Hydrafacial alleged has infringed Hydrafacial’s U.S. Patent No. 11,865,287. The Second Cartessa Case has been stayed pending resolution of the ITC Cartessa Matter and any pending appeals to the Federal Circuit. When the pending appeal in the ITC Cartessa Matter is dismissed or otherwise concluded, Hydrafacial plans to file a motion to reopen the Second Cartessa Case to vigorously pursue its claims against Cartessa and seek monetary damages.
Eunsung Global Corp (and Sinclair Pharma Ltd. and Aesthetic Management Partners, Inc.) - IPRs
On September 30, 2024, Eunsung filed a Petition for inter partes review (“IPR”), IPR2024-01491, challenging the validity of Hydrafacial’s U.S. Patent No. 11,865, 287 (the “’287 Patent”). On November 25, 2024, Sinclair Pharma Ltd and Aesthetic Management Partners, Inc. (“AMP”) filed a similar IPR Petition, IPR2025-00145, challenging the same patent and relying on the same arguments. On January 10, 2025, Eunsung filed an IPR Petition, IPR2025-00445, challenging the validity of Hydrafacial’s U.S. Patent No. 9,550,052 (the “’052 Patent”). On January 13, 2025, Eunsung filed an IPR Petition, IPR2025-00452, challenging the validity of Hydrafacial’s U.S. Patent No. 12,053,607. On January 14, 2025, Eunsung filed an IPR Petition, IPR2025-00453, challenging the validity of Hydrafacial’s U.S. Patent No. 11,446,477 (the “’477 Patent”). On April 11, 2025, the U.S.P.T.O. Board denied institution of the first IPR challenging the ’287 Patent (IPR2024-01491). On June 2, 2025, the U.S.P.T.O. Board granted institution of the second IPR challenging the ’287 Patent (IPR2025-00145). In July 2025, Sinclair and AMP filed copycat IPR Petitions challenging the ’052 Patent and ’477 Patent (IPR2025-01169 and IPR2025-01217, respectively) based on the same arguments as Eunsung’s corresponding IPR Petitions. In July 2025, Eunsung terminated each of its IPR proceedings against Hydrafacial.
On February 12, 2026, the director of the U.S.P.T.O. de-instituted and denied the second IPR challenging the ’287 Patent (IPR2025-00145). On April 20, 2026, the director denied Sinclair’s request for rehearing of that de-institution decision. The only IPR proceedings still pending against Hydrafacial are the two copycat IPRs from Sinclair and AMP (IPR2025-01169 and IPR2025-01217, respectively), which have been stayed by the director in view of the pending Director Review of the institution decision in IPR2025-00145. Hydrafacial expects these two remaining copycat IPRs challenging the ’052 Patent and ’477 Patent to also be de-instituted given that they were stayed pending the decision on the ’287 Patent, which has now been issued. Hydrafacial plans to continue vigorously defending its patents against each of these challenges.
Medicreations LLC
On May 6, 2024, Hydrafacial filed a complaint against Medicreations LLC (“Medicreations”) in the United States District Court for Nevada, Case Number 2:24-cv-00855 (the “Medicreations Case”), for patent infringement arising from Medicreations’ sale of hydrodermabrasion systems that Hydrafacial alleged to have infringed twelve of Hydrafacial’s patents. On July 26, 2024, Medicreations filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On March 3, 2025, the court issued an order dismissing a few of Hydrafacial’s claims to specific remedies, but the majority of the case and claims will move forward. On May 13, 2025, Hydrafacial filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction that was denied in October 2025. This case continued against Medicreations until the parties achieved a settlement on March 19, 2026, wherein Medicreations agreed to pay Hydrafacial $225,000 in past damages and a royalty of 35% of sales Medicreations made in February and March 2026. As a result, the Medicreations Case has been dismissed.
Sinclair Pharma US, Inc
On July 24, 2024, Hydrafacial filed a complaint against Sinclair Pharma US, Inc (“Sinclair”), and its distributor Viora, Inc (“Viora”), in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-06250 (the “Sinclair Case”), for patent infringement arising from Sinclair’s sale of hydrodermabrasion systems that Hydrafacial alleged to have infringed five of Hydrafacial’s patents on its device. The Sinclair Case was stayed pending the resolution of an ITC investigation against Sinclair. The ITC investigation was terminated in February 2025, and the district court judge lifted the stay for a short time before staying discovery again in view of the IPRs that were instituted and stayed. Hydrafacial expects for this stay to be lifted once the remaining IPRs are de-instituted. Hydrafacial plans to seek monetary damages and vigorously pursue its claims against Sinclair and Viora.
36
Aesthetic Management Partners Inc.
On July 8, 2024, Hydrafacial filed a complaint against AMP in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Case No. 2:24-cv-02480-JPM-TMP (the “AMP Case”), for patent infringement arising from Aesthetic Management Partners’ sale of hydrodermabrasion systems that Hydrafacial alleged to have infringed five of Hydrafacial’s patents on its device. The AMP Case was stayed due to a corresponding ITC investigation. The ITC investigation was terminated in February 2025, and the judge lifted the stay.
On June 13, 2025, Hydrafacial filed a motion for preliminary injunction for which the judge held a hearing on July 25, 2025, but the judge has not yet issued an order. On June 23, 2025, AMP filed a partial motion to dismiss which only addresses a small portion of Hydrafacial’s claims and remedies in this case, but a hearing has not been scheduled for this motion yet. The judge held a claim construction hearing on February 27, 2026. Discovery is proceeding as the parties await the judge’s orders on the pending motions and claim construction. Hydrafacial will continue to seek monetary damages, and plans to vigorously pursue its claims against AMP.
Medical Purchasing Resource, LLC
On June 4, 2024, Hydrafacial filed a complaint against Medical Purchasing Resource, LLC (“Medical Purchasing Resource”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-4655 (the “MPR Case”), for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, tortious interference, and other causes of action relating to Hydrafacial’s trademark rights. On April 3, 2025, the parties participated in a mediation and came to a tentative agreement to settle the case. In the mediation, the parties reached a settlement agreement and ultimately agreed that Medical Purchasing Resource will stop using Hydrafacial’s trademarks and any marks that are confusingly similar to those marks. Medical Purchasing Resource also agreed to stop the other activities identified by Hydrafacial in its complaint, including selling products to known Hydrafacial customers. Medical Purchasing Resource also agreed to take additional measures to ensure that customers are aware that Medical Purchasing Resource and its products have no relation or affiliation with Hydrafacial. Medical Purchasing Resource also agreed to pay Hydrafacial a total of $105,000 for past damages which will be paid to Hydrafacial in four quarterly payments of $26,250 starting in July 2025, and the parties filed a consent judgment with the court to end the lawsuit. As a result, the MPR Case has been dismissed.
Luvo Medical Technologies Inc
On August 16, 2024, Hydrafacial filed a complaint against Luvo Medical Technologies Inc (“Luvo”), Healthcare Markets, Inc (“Healthcare Markets”), and their foreign manufacturer Eunsung in the United States District Court of Utah, Case No. 2:24-cv-00587 (the “Luvo Case”), for patent infringement arising from Healthcare Markets’ sale of Luvo’s hydrodermabrasion systems that Hydrafacial alleged to have infringed five of Hydrafacial’s patents on its device. The Luvo Case was stayed due to the corresponding ITC Luvo Matter, but pursuant to the ITC settlement agreement, the parties filed a consent judgment in the Luvo Case that terminated the case as to Luvo and Healthcare Markets. This case continued against Eunsung until the parties achieved a settlement in July 2025, wherein Eunsung agreed to a consent judgment as well. As a result, the Luvo Case has been dismissed.
On August 7, 2024, Hydrafacial filed a complaint against Luvo, its distributor Healthcare Markets, Medical Purchasing Resource, eMIRAmed, and its manufacturer, MIRAmedtech, in the United States International Trade Commission. A Notice of Institution of Investigation was issued on September 16, 2024, and the investigation was assigned investigation number 337-TA-1417 (the “ITC Luvo Matter”). In the ITC Luvo Matter, Hydrafacial has asserted that Luvo, Healthcare Markets, Medical Purchasing Resource, and eMIRAmed USA, LLC (“eMIRAmed”) infringe Hydrafacial’s U.S. Patent No. 11,446,477, which is not asserted in the ITC Cartessa Matter or ITC Sinclair Matter, and relates to hydrodermabrasion systems. After a mediation between the parties, on March 17, 2025, Hydrafacial signed a settlement agreement with Luvo and Healthcare Markets. As a result, the ITC has terminated the investigation as to Luvo and Healthcare Markets, and issued default judgment against the remaining respondents.
37
eMIRAmed USA, LLC
On August 26, 2024, Hydrafacial filed a complaint against eMIRAmed USA, LLC (“eMIRAmed”), and its manufacturer MIRAmedtech UG (“MIRAmedtech”), in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:24-cv-01865 (the “eMIRAmed Case”), for patent infringement arising from eMIRAmed’s sale of hydrodermabrasion systems that Hydrafacial alleged to have infringed five of Hydrafacial’s patents on its device. Hydrafacial is seeking monetary damages and plans to vigorously pursue its claims against eMIRAmed and MIRAmedtech. On January 22, 2025, Hydrafacial moved for default judgment against eMIRAmed and MIRAmedtech. On January 30, 2025, eMIRAmed filed notice of Chapter 7 bankruptcy. On March 21, 2025, the court granted default judgment against MIRAmedtech but denied default judgment against eMIRAmed due to its bankruptcy filing. As a result, the eMIRAmed Case has been closed.
Med Spa Essentials, LLC
On March 6, 2025, Hydrafacial filed a complaint against Med Spa Essentials, LLC (“MS Essentials”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:25-cv-01994 (the “MS Essentials Case”), for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, tortious interference, and other causes of action relating to Hydrafacial’s trademark rights. Before filing any response to the complaint, MS Essentials agreed to shut down its business and stop all unlawful acts alleged in the complaint. The parties entered into a settlement agreement and filed a consent judgment, dismissing this case in July 2025.
Candela Corp.
On April 3, 2025, Hydrafacial filed a complaint against Candela Corp. (“Candela”), and its manufacturer Termosalud S.L. (“Termosalud”), in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:25-cv-00418-JLH (the “Candela Case”), for patent infringement arising from Candela’s sale of hydrodermabrasion systems that Hydrafacial alleged to have infringed five of Hydrafacial’s patents on its device. Hydrafacial reached a settlement with Candela in April 2026 and will dismiss the case as to Candela by the end of May 2026. Hydrafacial has not reached a settlement with Termosalud, and as a result, Hydrafacial plans to vigorously pursue its claims against Termosalud, including monetary damages.
BQ Aesthetix & Co., LLC
On June 24, 2025, Hydrafacial filed a complaint against BQ Aesthetix & Co., LLC d/b/a Bellatrix USA (“Bellatrix”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Case No. 0:25-cv-61262-AHS (the “Bellatrix Case”), for patent infringement arising from Bellatrix’s sale of hydrodermabrasion systems that Hydrafacial alleged to have infringed seven of Hydrafacial’s patents on its device. On June 26, 2026, Bellatrix filed notice of Chapter 7 bankruptcy. On June 29, 2026, the court stayed the case until resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings. Hydrafacial expects this case to be dismissed by the end of 2026.
Securities Class Action
On November 16, 2023, a putative class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, its then-current President and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Stanleick, its former Chief Financial Officer, Liyuan Woo, and its current Chief Financial Officer, Michael Monahan. The complaint, styled Abduladhim A. Alghazwi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. The Beauty Health Company, Andrew Stanleick, Liyuan Woo, and Michael Monahan, Case No. 2:23-cv-09733 (C.D. Ca.) (the “Securities Class Action”), asserted claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants (the “First Claim”), and violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants (the “Second Claim”). The complaint alleged that, between May 10, 2022 and November 13, 2023, defendants materially misled the investing public by publicly issuing false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions relating to Hydrafacial LLC's business, operations, and prospects, specifically with respect to the performance of and demand for the Syndeo 1.0 and 2.0 devices. The relief sought in the complaint included a request for compensatory damages suffered by the plaintiff and other members of the putative class for damages allegedly sustained as a result of the alleged securities violations.
38
On January 16, 2024, putative class members Jeff and Kevin Brown (the “Browns”), Priscilla and Martijn Dijkgraaf (the “Dijkgraafs”), and Joseph Jou filed three competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, 17 U.S.C. § 78u-4(a)(3). On January 31, 2024, Joseph Jou filed a notice of non-opposition to the Browns’ and Dijkgraafs’ motions for appointment as lead plaintiff. On May 2, 2024, the Court granted the Dijkgraafs’ motion for appointment as lead plaintiff and approved the Dijkgraafs’ counsel, Hagens Berman, as lead counsel. On July 1, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint asserting the same causes of action as the original complaint, but dropping Mr. Monahan as a defendant. The Securities Class Action case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett. On September 30, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs filed their opposition brief on November 22, 2024, and defendants filed their reply brief on December 23, 2024. A hearing on the defendants’ motion to dismiss was scheduled for January 15, 2025. On January 10, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to adjourn the January 15, 2025 hearing. On January 17, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to withdraw briefing on defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling and to briefly stay proceedings so that the parties could complete a private mediation before Greg Danilow of Phillips ADR Enterprises, P.C. The parties conducted the private mediation on March 27, 2025. The parties were unable to reach a settlement at the mediation. On May 5, 2025, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (the “SAC”), pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, which was so-ordered by the Court on April 16, 2025. On July 11, 2025, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the SAC in its entirety. The Court scheduled a hearing on defendants’ motion for September 17, 2025. On September 15, 2025, the Court vacated the hearing sua sponte. On September 25, 2025, the Court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. On November 24, 2025, each Defendant filed an answer to the SAC. On November 26, 2025, the parties filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) joint report and proposed stipulated pretrial schedule. On December 15, 2025, the Court so-ordered the parties’ stipulated pretrial schedule, set the final pretrial conference for November 17, 2027, and set trial for December 7, 2027. On the same day, the Court referred the parties to a private mediation before a private mediator of their choice, to be completed by October 13, 2027. On March 24, 2026, the parties entered into a stipulation to extend the case schedule by approximately three months to allow them to focus on mediation efforts. On March 25, 2026, the Court issued an order granting the joint stipulation, resulting in a three-month extension of the case schedule and discovery deadlines. On May 20, 2026, the parties participated in a second private mediation, which took place in person, with Mr. Danilow of Phillips ADR Enterprises, P.C. After extensive negotiations, the parties reached a settlement in principle. On May 26, 2026, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of settlement, notifying the Court that the parties had agreed to a tentative settlement to resolve the entire action against all defendants, including Andrew Stanleick and Liyuan Woo. In that notice of settlement, the parties also notified the Court that they intended to file a comprehensive written settlement agreement and related documents, as part of their motion for preliminary approval. On June 17, 2026, lead plaintiffs filed their motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement, certification of the settlement class, approval of notice to the settlement class, and scheduling of the fairness hearing (the “Preliminary Approval Motion”). On July 2, 2026, lead plaintiffs filed a notice of absence of objection to the Preliminary Approval Motion, noting that no opposition or objection to the Preliminary Approval Motion had been filed to date. The proposed settlement remains subject to Court approval. However, if the Court does approve the proposed settlement, the Company will cause to be paid a total cash settlement payment of $18,000,000 (the “Cash Payment”), of which, the Company will be responsible to pay only $3,000,000 of the Cash Payment from its own funds, while the remaining $15,000,000 of the Cash Payment will come from certain of the Company’s insurers.
The Company denies and continues to deny the allegations in the Securities Class Action and all charges of wrongdoing or liability.
39
Customer Class Action
On October 24, 2024, Jason Davalos (“Jason Davalos”), Sonia Davalos (“Sonia Davalos”, and collectively with Jason Davalos, the “Davaloses”), and Sol Tan Tanning & Spa LLC (“Sol Tan”, and collectively with the Davaloses, the “Class Action Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint (the “Complaint”) against Hydrafacial LLC d/b/a The Hydrafacial Company (“Hydrafacial”) and The Beauty Health Company (“BHC” and collectively with Hydrafacial, the “Class Action Defendants”) for alleged violations of New York consumer fraud statutes, breach of contract, and common law breach of implied warranties (the “Customer Class Action”). Following motion practice and two amended complaints (as further described below), the case is now captioned Sol Tan Tanning & Spa LLC, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hydrafacial LLC dba The Hydrafacial Company, Case No. 24-cv-8073 (S.D.N.Y.) (Caproni, J.). The Complaint alleged that all three versions of the Syndeo machine (Syndeo 1.0, Syndeo 2.0, and Syndeo 3.0) were defective and did not perform in the manner in which it had been represented by Class Action Defendants. Class Action Plaintiffs claim that Class Action Defendants made various misrepresentations in its marketing and sales of the Syndeo machines and, rather than provide a refund to customers for the defective machines, replaced them with another Syndeo machine that exhibited the same defects. Class Action Plaintiffs purported to bring claims on behalf of themselves, and all other similarly situated purchasers within the United States as well as a New York subclass. The Complaint asserted five causes of action: (1) violations of N.Y. G.B.L., § 349, the state consumer protection statute; (2) violations of N.Y. G.B.L., § 350, the state’s false advertising statute; (3) breach of contract; (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and (5) breach of the implied warranty of fitness. The relief sought included monetary damages allegedly suffered by Class Action Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class as a result of Class Action Defendants’ alleged violations and breaches, including a trebling of any money damages award for alleged violations of N.Y. G.B.L., § 349 and § 350.
On December 30, 2024, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety. On January 3, 2025, the Class Action Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery during the pendency of their motion to dismiss. On January 8, 2025, the Davaloses voluntarily dismissed their claims against the Class Action Defendants pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), leaving plaintiff Sol Tan as the sole remaining Customer Class Action Plaintiff. Plaintiff Sol Tan filed their opposition brief on January 9, 2025, and the Class Action Defendants filed their reply brief on January 13, 2025. On January 16, 2025, the Court granted the parties’ joint stipulation to adjourn the January 17, 2025 initial pretrial conference and stay the action pending the parties’ completion of a private mediation. As part of its order, the Court also (1) adjourned plaintiff Sol Tan’s deadline to respond to the Class Action Defendants’ motion to dismiss sine die pending the outcome of mediation; (2) denied as moot the Class Action Defendants’ motion to stay discovery in light of the parties’ agreement to stay discovery pending the outcome of mediation; and (3) directed the parties to (a) file a joint letter on or before February 7, 2025, indicating the date (not later than May 8, 2025) on which the mediation is scheduled to occur; and (b) within seven days after the mediation, either (i) file a joint letter indicating that settlement was reached; or (ii) file a revised proposed case management plan and a revised joint letter required by the Court’s Notice of Initial Pretrial Conference. On February 7, 2025, the parties filed a joint letter notifying the Court that they had agreed to mediate before Greg Danilow of Phillips ADR Enterprises. The parties conducted the private mediation on April 29, 2025; however, the parties were unable to reach a settlement at the mediation. Pursuant to the parties’ so-ordered January 16 joint stipulation, on May 7, 2025, the parties filed a revised proposed case management plan and a revised joint letter in accordance with the Court’s Notice of Initial Pretrial Conference. On the same day, the Court endorsed the joint submission and ordered plaintiff Sol Tan to file an amended complaint no later than June 2, 2025, and scheduled an initial pretrial conference for July 18, 2025.
40
On June 2, 2025, plaintiff Sol Tan and fifteen other alleged purchasers of the Syndeo machines (“Plaintiffs”) filed an amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”) asserting: (1) violations of N.Y. G.B.L., § 349 (“Count IV”), the state consumer protection statute; (2) violations of N.Y. G.B.L., § 350 (“Count V”), the state’s false advertising statute; (3) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (“Count I”); (4) breach of express and implied contract and class-wide rescission (“Count II”); and (5) breach of express warranty (“Count III”). The relief sought in the Amended Complaint included monetary damages allegedly suffered by Class Action Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class as a result of Class Action Defendants’ alleged violations and breaches, including a trebling of any money damages award for alleged violations of N.Y. G.B.L., § 349 and § 350. For Counts IV (violations of N.Y. G.B.L., § 349) and V (violations of N.Y. G.B.L., § 350), plaintiff Jennifer Skuratov d/b/a Spa Thirsty, Inc. (“Spa Thirsty”), sought certification of an alternative subclass of New York purchasers of Syndeo devices (the “Putative New York Subclass”). On June 23, 2025, Class Action Defendants moved to (i) dismiss Counts I, II, IV, and V in full; (ii) partially dismiss Count III to the extent it alleges design defects; (iii) dismiss all claims brought by plaintiff Spa Thirsty in full; (iv) dismiss all claims against BHC in full; and (v) dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief. On December 22, 2025, the Court granted Class Action Defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety, except it denied Class Action Defendants’ request that the claims brought by plaintiff Spa Thirsty be dismissed with prejudice. Specifically, the Court dismissed (i) all of Plaintiffs’ claims against BHC; (ii) Plaintiffs’ Count I, Count II, Count IV, Count V, and their request for injunctive relief; and (iii) the Class Action Plaintiffs’ Count III to the extent it arises out of alleged defects affirmatively identified as “design defects” in the Amended Complaint. In addition, the Court denied the Class Action Plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend as to all of the dismissed causes of action except for plaintiff Spa Thirsty’s claims pursuant to N.Y. G.B.L. §§ 349 and 350. The Court gave plaintiff Spa Thirsty until January 9, 2026 to move for leave to file a second amended complaint that addresses the deficiencies with plaintiff Spa Thirsty’s §§ 349 and 350 claims. Those deficiencies included plaintiff Spa Thirsty’s failure to allege that it “was aware of any of [d]efendants’ purportedly deceptive statements ‘before [it] purchased or came into possession’ of the Syndeo.”
On January 9, 2026, Class Action Plaintiffs filed a letter motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and for reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Count II. Class Action Plaintiffs appended a proposed second amended complaint (the “Second Amended Complaint”) to their letter motion. The Second Amended Complaint alleged that plaintiff Spa Thirsty purchased a Syndeo in reliance on representations made by Hydrafacial to plaintiff Spa Thirsty at an aesthetic conference in New York, including that Syndeo was “top of the line,” “hands free,” “had superior cleanliness,” “superior,” “a major upgrade,” “works great,” and “yielded ‘more than 15 uses per bottle of solution serum.” The Second Amended Complaint alleged that those representations were deceptive in violation of N.Y. G.B.L. §§ 349 and 350 because the Syndeo allegedly lacked attributes Hydrafacial had represented to plaintiff Spa Thirsty and did not yield the promised treatments per bottle of solution serum. On January 23, 2026, Hydrafacial filed its opposition to Class Action Plaintiffs’ letter motion. Hydrafacial argued that the Second Amended Complaint was futile because all of its alleged representations about the Syndeo were inactionable puffery, except for, arguably, the representation regarding the number of treatments per bottle of solution serum. For that representation, Hydrafacial argued that plaintiff Spa Thirsty did not allege that its Syndeo yielded fewer than 15 treatments per bottle and failed to allege other facts required to state §§ 349 and 350 claims. Hydrafacial also argued that Class Action Plaintiffs’ request for reconsideration of the dismissal of Count II should be denied as untimely.
On January 27, 2026, the Court issued an order granting Class Action Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the Second Amended Complaint but denied their request that the Court reconsider its order dismissing the claim for breach of contract in Count II of the Amended Complaint. Although the Court agreed with Hydrafacial that “many of the claims attributed to HydraFacial in the Second Amended Complaint are non-actionable puffery, the claim that the Syndeo ‘yielded more than 15 uses per bottle of serum’ is a verifiable statement of fact,” and the Court could “infer that plaintiff Spa Thirsty’s machine failed to yield the promised number of uses per bottle of serum …. From plaintiff Spa Thirsty’s allegation that its ‘machines run through serums faster than Defendant states it should.’” The Court denied reconsideration because Class Action Plaintiffs’ request was both untimely and “would fail on the merits,” as Class Action Plaintiffs “failed to allege the specific provisions of the contract upon which liability was predicated.” Pursuant to the Court’s order, Class Action Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint on January 29, 2026. As a result of the Court’s ruling, the only claims still pending before the Court in the Customer Class Action are (i) the Class Action Plaintiffs’ claim against Hydrafacial for breach of its express warranty against defects in materials and workmanship; and (ii) plaintiff Spa Thirsty’s claim, asserted on behalf of itself and the Putative New York Subclass against Hydrafacial, for alleged violations of N.Y. G.B.L., § 349 and § 350.
41
On February 26, 2026, the parties jointly notified the Court that a settlement-in-principle had been reached and requested that all deadlines be stayed for sixty (60) days. On March 2, 2026, the Court ordered Class Action Plaintiffs to file the necessary motion papers for preliminary approval of the settlement on or before May 29, 2026, and canceled all other deadlines in the case. On May 29, 2026, Class Action Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On June 10, 2026, the Court issued an order denying the motion without prejudice, and requested that Class Action Plaintiffs file a supplemental letter addressing certain questions from the Court regarding distribution of proceeds and payment of attorneys’ fees and requesting amended versions of the proposed forms of notice. On June 15, 2026, Class Action Plaintiffs filed their supplemental letter and revised proposed forms of notice. On June 25, 2026, the Court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the class action settlement and set a final approval hearing for December 4, 2026 at 10:00 am.
The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Customer Class Action have no merit and it intends to vigorously defend them.
Consolidated Derivative Action
On February 8, 2024, a derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company’s former President and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Stanleick; its former Chief Financial Officer, Liyuan Woo, and current members of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board of Directors”): Brenton Saunders, Marla Beck, Michael Capellas, Julius Few, Desiree Gruber, Michelle Kerrick, Brian Miller, and Doug Schillinger, with the Company as the nominal defendant. The complaint, styled Margie Elstein, derivatively on behalf of The Beauty Health Company v. Brenton Saunders, Marla Beck, Michael Capellas, Julius Few, Desiree Gruber, Michelle Kerrick, Brian Miller, Doug Schillinger, Andrew Stanleick, and Liyuan Woo, C.A. No. 2024-0114-LWW (Del. Ch.) (the “Elstein Derivative Action”), asserts a single claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the individual defendants based on the alleged disclosure of knowingly false information and/or the alleged failure to respond to red flags relating to Hydrafacial’s business, operations, and prospects, specifically with respect to the performance of and demand for the Syndeo 1.0 and 2.0 devices. The plaintiff-stockholder further maintains that no demand was made upon the Board of Directors prior to the initiation of the Elstein Derivative Action based on allegations that a majority of the Board of Directors was not disinterested or independent with respect to the fiduciary duty claim, such that demand should be excused as futile. The relief sought in the complaint includes a finding of demand futility, a finding that the individual defendants are liable for breaching their fiduciary duties (as current/former officers and directors), and an award of compensatory damages for harm suffered by the Company and its stockholders for harm allegedly sustained as a result of the alleged fiduciary duty violation.
On May 1, 2024, a derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company’s former President and Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Stanleick; its former Chief Financial Officer, Liyuan Woo, and the then-current members of the Board of Directors: Brent Saunders, Marla Beck, Michael Capellas, Julius Few, Desiree Gruber, Michelle Kerrick, Brian Miller, and Doug Schillinger, with the Company as the nominal defendant. The complaint, styled Richard Montague, derivatively on behalf of The Beauty Health Company v. Andrew Stanleick, Liyuan Woo, Brent Saunders, Marla Beck, Michael Capellas, Julius Few, Desiree Gruber, Michelle Kerrick, Brian Miller, and Doug Schillinger, C.A. No. 2024-0463-LWW (Del. Ch.) (the “Montague Derivative Action”), asserts claims for (i) breach of fiduciary duty, (ii) gross mismanagement, (iii) waste of corporate assets, (iv) unjust enrichment, and (v) aiding and abetting against the individual defendants based on allegations that the individual defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failing to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, specifically relating to the Syndeo 1.0 and 2.0 devices. The relief sought in the Montague Derivative Action includes (a) awarding damages for harm suffered by the Company allegedly sustained as a result of the individual defendants’ alleged breach of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment, (b) awarding damages for harm suffered by the Company allegedly sustained as a result of the Company’s directors’ alleged aiding and abetting of breaching their fiduciary duties, (c) directing the Company to reform and improve its corporate governance and internal procedures, to comply with its existing governance obligations and all applicable laws, and to protect its investors from a recurrence of the alleged damaging events, and (d) awarding the plaintiff-stockholder the costs and disbursements of the Montague Derivative Action, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, accountants’ and experts’ fees, costs, and expenses.
42
On May 22, 2024, the parties to the Elstein Derivative Action and Montague Derivative Action submitted a Stipulation and Proposed Order Governing Consolidation, Appointment of Lead, and Deadline to Respond to Operative Complaint. On May 24, 2024, Vice Chancellor Will, who was assigned to both the Elstein Derivative Action and the Montague Derivative Action, entered the Stipulation and Order Governing Consolidation, Appointment of Lead, and Deadline to Respond to Operative Complaint (the “Consolidation Order”). Per the Consolidation Order, the Elstein Derivative Action and the Montague Derivative Action were consolidated into a single derivative action, styled In re The Beauty Health Company Consolidated Stockholder Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 2024-0114-LWW (Del. Ch.) (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”). The Consolidation Order designated the law firms of Gainey McKenna & Egleston and Komlossy Law, P.A. as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Derivative Action, and designated the law firm of Cooch and Taylor, P.A. as Delaware counsel for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Derivative Action. Additionally, the Consolidation Order designated the complaint filed in the Elstein Derivative Action as the operative complaint for the Consolidated Derivative Action, further providing that defendants are not obligated to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint filed in the Montague Derivative Action. The Consolidation Order further provided that defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint filed in the Elstein Derivative Action by August 25, 2024. This response deadline was subsequently vacated, prior to plaintiffs’ filing, on September 9, 2024, of their Verified Consolidated Amended Stockholder Derivative Complaint (the “Operative Complaint”). On September 16, 2024, defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss the Operative Complaint, or Alternatively, Stay the Proceedings (the “Motion to Dismiss”). Defendants filed their opening brief in support of their Motion to Dismiss and stay on February 28, 2025. Pursuant to a scheduling order entered by the court, plaintiffs’ answering brief was filed on May 2, 2025, and defendants’ reply brief was filed on June 3, 2025. The parties held a mediation on November 4, 2025 and reached agreement on terms of a mutually agreeable resolution. On February 9, 2026, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement, which is subject to court approval. On February 20, 2026, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered a Scheduling Order with respect to Notice and Settlement Hearing, requiring the Company to file a copy of the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Derivative Action as an exhibit to a Current Report on Form 8-K, which the Company filed on March 6, 2026. The Court conducted a settlement hearing on May 13, 2026. The Delaware Court of Chancery took the matter under advisement, and the parties are awaiting the Court’s decision on approval of the Stipulation of Settlement.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) Subpoena
On January 11, 2024, the Company was informed that the SEC is conducting a formal investigation of the Company related to, among other things, the allegations brought against the Company in the Securities Class Action lawsuit. The Company has subsequently received subpoenas from the SEC for the production of documents and witness testimony related to its investigation. The Company is in the process of responding to the subpoenas and intends to continue to fully cooperate with the SEC investigation. We cannot predict the duration, scope, or outcome of this matter at this time.
Read original filing text →