The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
KOURTNEY RUSOW, et al., Case No. 26-cv-02411-VC
Plaintiffs,
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
v. DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
DISMISS
JOLIE SKIN COMPANY, INC.,
Re: Dkt. No. 20
Defendant.
Jolie’s motion to dismiss is denied as to the chlorine removal claims and granted as to the
hair growth claims. This ruling assumes the reader’s familiarity with the facts, the applicable
legal standards, and the arguments made by the parties.
1. The complaint plausibly alleges that a reasonable consumer would likely be misled by
the “removes chlorine” representation; i.e., that they would think that the products effectively
eliminate chlorine, which is inconsistent with the actual result of a 66% reduction in chlorine.
The chlorine removal representation is not puffery as a matter of law because it is plausibly a
“specific and measurable advertisement claim of product superiority based on product testing,”
rather than a product superiority claim that is “vague or highly subjective.” Southland Sod Farms
v. Stover Seed Company, 108 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 1997). It would be one thing if the
products claimed to “reduce contaminants, not remove them,” but that’s not the representation
that Jolie made. See Brown v. Brita Products Company, 2024 WL 4815354, at *4 (C.D. Cal.
Sep. 30, 2024) (finding that representations that a water filter “reduces” chlorine and other
contaminants do not mislead a reasonable consumer into thinking that the filter completely
removes them). And the complaint adequately alleges that “removes chlorine” is unambiguous
and thus Jolie’s study (even if clearly linked to on all pages from which the plaintiffs purchased
the product, which seems doubtful) may not be considered together with the “front label”
chlorine removal representation. See McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Company, 69 F 4th 1093,
1098 (9th Cir. 2023).
2. The complaint does not plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would likely be
misled by the hair growth representations. Jolie’s representations about decreased hair shedding,
etc., are not inconsistent with evidence suggesting that the showerhead’s chlorine reduction
results in less hair breakage. A reasonable consumer would not expect more, as it is unreasonable
to expect a showerhead to literally regrow hair follicles the way that a medication might.
Dismissal of the hair growth claims 1s with leave to amend; that is, the plaintiffs have 14
days from this order to file an amended complaint that clarifies that plaintiff Clifft brings
chlorine removal claims. Jolie’s response is due 14 days thereafter. Discovery may begin
immediately after the amended complaint is filed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 8, 2026 DoS.
ee
VINCE CHHABRIA
United States District Judge