XML 39 R15.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.25.4
Commitments and Contingencies
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies Commitments and Contingencies
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.

With respect to all such lawsuits, claims, and proceedings, if the Company determines a loss is probable and its amount can be reasonably estimated, the Company accrues an amount equal to the estimated loss. The assessment of whether a loss is probable or reasonably possible, and whether the loss or a range of loss is estimable, often involves a series of complex judgments about future events. In all instances, management has assessed the matter based on current information and made a judgment concerning its potential outcome, giving due consideration to the nature of the claim, the amount and nature of damages sought and the probability of success, and taking into account, among other things, negotiations with claimants, discovery, settlements and payments, judicial rulings, arbitration and mediation decisions, advice of internal and external legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular matter. Costs incurred for litigation are expensed as incurred.

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.

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 “Defendants”). 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 (First Claim), and violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants (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'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.
On January 16, 2024, putative class members Jeff and Kevin Brown (the “Browns”), Priscilla and Martjn Dijkgraaf (the “Dijkgraafs”), and Joseph Jou filed three competing motions for appointment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), 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. 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. 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. The parties are currently in the discovery phase of the case.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the Securities Class Action have no merit and intends to vigorously defend them.

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”). The case is captioned Jason Davalos, Sonia Davalos, Sol Tan Tanning & Spa LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Hydrafacial LLC dba The Hydrafacial Company, and The Beauty Health 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, of Class Action Defendants’ Syndeo machines. The Complaint asserted five causes of action: (1) violations of N.Y. G.B.L., § 349, the state consumer production 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 in the 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.
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 to file an amended complaint no later than June 2, 2025, and scheduled an initial pretrial conference for July 18, 2025.

On June 2, 2025, Plaintiff 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, 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 Defendants’ motion to dismiss in its entirety, except it denied 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’ claims for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability (Count I), breach of express and implied contract and class-wide rescission based on fraudulent inducement (Count II), and violations of N.Y. G.B.L., §§ 349 and 350 (Counts IV and V), and their request for injunctive relief; and (iii) the Class Action Plaintiffs’ claim for breach of express warranty (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 Defendants’ 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’ claims for breach of express and implied contract and class-wide rescission based on fraudulent inducement (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.

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.

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 Company’s 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 current members of the Company’s 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.

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 have reached agreement on terms of a mutually agreeable resolution. The parties are finalizing settlement papers for submission to, and the approval of, the Delaware Court of Chancery.

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 information related to its investigation. The Company is in the process of responding to the subpoenas and intends to fully cooperate with the SEC investigation. We cannot predict the duration, scope, or outcome of this matter at this time.
Contractual Obligations and Other Commercial Commitments

As of December 31, 2025, the Company has $20.3 million of non-cancelable contractual obligations and other commercial commitments related to the purchase of inventory, service, other items, of which $19.9 million will be paid within the next twelve months.