Paris Hilton faces a £22 million lawsuit for allegedly using the wrong hair extensions.
The 29-year-old American socialite is accused of violating her contract by not promoting products from HairTech International. Instead, the company claims she was photographed in media wearing extensions from a competing brand.
Hair-ess: Paris with approved HairTech extensions, left, and with a ‘rival product’
HairTech asserts that her party lifestyle conflicted with the brand’s marketing efforts and that she caused financial losses when she missed a product launch due to being incarcerated for a driving violation.
The Los Angeles-based firm has charged Miss Hilton with fraud and deceit, demanding £22 million in damages, which is ten times her earnings from the original agreement.
This legal dispute marks the latest in a string of court battles faced by Miss Hilton, the heiress of the Hilton Hotel fortune, being her fourth lawsuit in recent years.
In 2007, she entered into a £2.2 million contract with HairTech, granting the company global endorsement and licensing rights to use her name for products like hair extensions, hair care items, brushes, and combs.
Hair raising: Paris Hilton, pictured promoting her Clip N Go line of hair extensions in 2008
The marketed items were known as Paris Hilton’s Dreamcatcher Hair Extensions and were available in ten shades, including ‘Paris Blonde.’
She also debuted a trendy headband range named ‘The Bandit,’ featuring hair extensions.
Her role stipulated that she would be the spokesperson and face for Dreamcatcher, but court documents from the Los Angeles Superior Court suggest she failed to fulfill her commitments.
On at least one occasion in 2008, the documents indicate she was spotted donning hair extensions from a rival company.
Hair today: Hilton, pictured back in June, is a big fan of hair extensions
Moreover, she missed a crucial launch event for the products in 2007, having spent 23 days in jail for violating her probation after reckless driving.
Her absence resulted in a £4.2 million loss in revenue and business prospects for the company, they claim.
HairTech further contends she breached the contract, asserting that an ‘implied’ condition was her obligation to ‘obey the law.’
Should the case proceed to trial, it will be up to a jury or judge to determine if Miss Hilton owes any compensation to HairTech.