3.5 / 10

Frank Barone

Businessman named in consumer-fraud litigation

Caution — Proceed carefully
Reviewed January 14, 2024 Updated June 30, 2026
Public record: Named in civil litigation — allegations unproven
Allegations are unproven. This review references claims from public filings or reports that have not been proven in court. Being named in a lawsuit or investigation is not a finding of guilt, and every person is presumed innocent unless and until a court rules otherwise. Status: Adam v. Barone, No. 4:20-cv-00761-KAW (N.D. Cal.), filed Feb 2020. Allegations only; no public disposition confirmed at time of review.

What the public record shows

Frank Barone is named as a defendant in a federal civil class-action lawsuit, Cindy Adam v. Barone, et al., No. 4:20-cv-00761-KAW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (filed February 2020). The suit concerns the marketing and sale of the Nuvega Lash eyelash serum.

According to the plaintiff’s complaint, the operation behind Nuvega Lash used misleading “free trial” offers, enrolled customers in recurring auto-ship billing without clear consent, and charged cards without authorization — with claims brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

These are allegations made by the plaintiff. They have not been proven in court, and being named as a defendant is not a finding of wrongdoing.

Why we rate this “Caution” (3.5 / 10)

  • A pending consumer-fraud complaint in federal court is a legitimate caution flag for anyone weighing a financial or business relationship.
  • Because the allegations are unproven, we do not rate this “Avoid” or state that any wrongdoing occurred. The rating reflects unresolved risk, not established guilt.
  • If the case is dismissed or resolved in the defendant’s favor, the rating will rise. If a court enters a judgment or findings against him, it will fall.

What we are not saying

We are not stating that Frank Barone committed a crime, was convicted of anything, or was the subject of an SEC enforcement action. We could not verify such claims in the public record, so we do not make them. This review is limited to the documented civil litigation above.

Verify it yourself

  • CourtListener / PACER — pull the Adam v. Barone docket and read the complaint and any rulings directly.
  • FINRA BrokerCheck (brokercheck.finra.org) and SEC EDGAR / enforcement actions — check for any securities-industry record before trusting an investment pitch.
  • State business registries — confirm the entities and their status.

Bottom line

An unresolved federal consumer-fraud complaint is reason to proceed carefully and verify everything in writing — while remembering the allegations are unproven.

Sources

Editorial opinion — verify before you act. This review is independent editorial opinion based on public information and is not financial or legal advice. Ratings can change as new facts emerge. If you are the subject of this review and believe something is inaccurate, see our corrections & removals policy.

← Back to all reviews