Rusow v. Jolie Skin Company
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:26-cv-02411
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Kourtney Rusow v. Jolie Skin Company, Judge Chhabria granted in part and denied in part Jolie’s motion to dismiss.
The plaintiffs’ chlorine-removal claims may proceed under the order, while their hair-growth claims were dismissed with leave to amend. Jolie Skin Company, Inc.’s motion to dismiss was granted in part and denied in part.
What happened
In Kourtney Rusow v. Jolie Skin Company, the plaintiffs challenged Jolie Skin Company’s claims that its products remove chlorine and promote hair growth.
The court denied the motion to dismiss the chlorine-removal claims, finding that consumers could reasonably understand “removes chlorine” to mean that the products eliminate chlorine, even though testing showed a 66% reduction. The court granted the motion as to the hair-growth claims because the alleged reduction in chlorine could be consistent with less hair breakage, and a reasonable consumer would not expect a showerhead to regrow hair follicles like medication.
Judge Chhabria dismissed the hair-growth claims with leave to amend and gave the plaintiffs 14 days to file an amended complaint clarifying that plaintiff Clifft brings chlorine-removal claims. Jolie’s response is due 14 days later, and discovery may begin after the amended complaint is filed.
The detailed version
- Rusow v. Jolie Skin Company · No. 3:26-cv-02411
- Vince Chhabria
- Sept. 8, 2026
Background
The plaintiffs challenged representations made by Jolie Skin Company about its products. The opinion addresses two groups of claims: representations that the products “remove chlorine” and representations concerning hair growth, including decreased hair shedding.
Chlorine-removal claims
The court held that the complaint plausibly alleged that a reasonable consumer would likely be misled by the “removes chlorine” representation. The court explained that consumers could understand the statement to mean that the products effectively eliminate chlorine, while the actual result was a 66% reduction.
The court also held that the representation was not puffery as a matter of law. Instead, the complaint plausibly described it as a specific and measurable product-superiority claim based on testing, rather than a vague or highly subjective claim. The court further concluded that the complaint adequately alleged that “removes chlorine” was unambiguous. As a result, Jolie’s study could not be considered together with the front-label representation at this stage, even if the study was clearly linked on every page from which the plaintiffs purchased the product.
The motion to dismiss was denied as to the chlorine-removal claims.
Hair-growth claims
The court held that the complaint did not plausibly allege that a reasonable consumer would likely be misled by Jolie’s hair-growth representations. The court reasoned that representations about decreased hair shedding and similar effects were not inconsistent with evidence that reducing chlorine could result in less hair breakage. It also concluded that a reasonable consumer would not expect a showerhead literally to regrow hair follicles in the way a medication might.
The motion to dismiss was granted as to the hair-growth claims. The dismissal is with leave to amend: the plaintiffs have 14 days from the order to file an amended complaint that clarifies that plaintiff Clifft brings chlorine-removal claims. Jolie’s response is due 14 days after that filing. Discovery may begin immediately after the amended complaint is filed.
Disposition
Judge Vince Chhabria granted in part and denied in part Jolie’s motion to dismiss. The chlorine-removal claims were not dismissed, while the hair-growth claims were dismissed with leave to amend.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.