Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ADVERTISING—S.D. Cal.: Consumer’s claim that haircare products unlawfully labeled ‘Made in USA’ survive dismissal, (Dec 15, 2025)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The court found the consumer sufficiently alleged that the purchased product includes four foreign ingredients that represent more than a de minimis amount in the product.

The federal district court in San Diego, California granted in part and denied in part a motion to dismiss by It’s a New 10, LLC, which a consumer alleged unlawfully labeled its haircare products as “Made in the USA,” when they actually contained undisclosed foreign-sourced ingredients and components. The court found the consumer only has standing to sue over the product she purchased, and not the remaining unpurchased class products. The court also concluded that the consumer provided a number of specific allegations to support her “Made in the USA” fraudulent misrepresentation claim and met the heightened pleading requirements for claims sounding in fraud (Corona v. It’s A New 10, LLC, No. 3:25-cv-00377-GPC-BLM (S.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2025)).

Background. On February 20, 2025, Maria Corona filed a putative class action complaint against It’s a New 10 alleging that its Silk Express Miracle Silk Leave-In product was falsely labeled as "Made in the USA". The consumer purchased the product for approximately $8.99, specifically seeking a U.S.-made product with domestic ingredients, but alleges it contains foreign-sourced ingredients, including palm oil, camellia sinensis (tea) leaf extract, hydrolyzed silk, and silk amino acids.

The complaint extends to four additional products with similar allegedly false labeling: Miracle Moisture Shampoo (containing acai berry extract), Silk Express Miracle Daily Shampoo (containing palm oil and hydrolyzed silk), Miracle Daily Conditioner (containing silk amino acids), and Miracle Blowdry Volumizer (containing hydrolyzed silk). Corona argued that Defendant has systematically misled the consumers for years, exploiting American the consumers' perception that U.S.-made products are higher quality to either charge premium prices or gain competitive advantages.

The consumer asserted under the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).

Previous decision. Previously the district court rejected the consumer’s preemption argument by holding that neither the FTC’s “all or virtually all” standard nor 15 U.S.C. § 45a expressly or implicitly displaces California’s percentage-based safe-harbor labeling statute. Further, the court denied the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), finding the complaint plausibly alleges that a reasonable the consumer could be deceived by unqualified origin claims, thereby supporting claims under the FAL, UCL, and CLRA. Third, applying the Ninth Circuit standing doctrine, the court permitted challenges to four “substantially similar” products that the consumer did not purchase, but it dismissed claims as to unidentified items. Because an amendment could cure any remaining pleading defects, the court granted leave to file an amended complaint.

The consumer’s first amended complaint (FAC) repeated the claims of the original complaint. The Defendant moved to dismiss all of the claims in the FAC for failure to state a claim and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Safe harbor rule. Defendant moved to dismiss all causes of action, arguing that the FAC failed to allege facts that the products fall outside of California’s safe harbor rules, as the consumer has not specifically articulated any percentage of the foreign sourced ingredients. Because the court found the consumer only has standing to sue over the product she purchased, and not the remaining unpurchased class products, the court solely analyzed the purchased product under the safe harbor rule, which allows a safe harbor for products with up to 5% (or, in defined circumstances, up to 10%) foreign content by value. The court noted that, while it previously concluded the complaint failed to allege any percentage of the foreign sourced ingredients or any allegations that the combination of foreign ingredients are more than 10% of the final wholesale value of the product, The consumer’s FAC cures this deficiency.

Standing. The court concluded that the consumer sufficiently alleged that the foreign ingredients in the product she purchased fall outside of California’s safe harbor rules. However, the consumer presented a list of 42 products she did not purchase, and each product has a wide range of ingredients, including many other foreign ingredients not contained in the product she purchased. While she identified foreign and likely foreign ingredients in each products, she failed to show that the unpurchased class products are similar in ingredients and in kind. Further, the consumer’s argument that the class products all contain foreign sourced ingredients does not demonstrate how the amount of foreign ingredients in the class products exceed 10% of the final wholesale value and fall outside of California’s safe harbor rules. Finally, the consumer’s attempt to assert standing to sue over products that have since been discontinued or renamed and not specifically identified also fails, as she failed to identify specific products or allege that the products are substantially similar to the product she purchased. Thus, the court concluded that the consumer does not have standing to sue over products she did not purchase.

Fraudulent misrepresentation. The court found the consumer provided specific allegations to support the “Made in the USA” fraudulent misrepresentation claim. She alleged that the purchased product includes four foreign ingredients listed as the eleventh, thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth ingredients out of nineteen ingredients and that, together, they represent more than a de minimis amount in the product. Based on the number of ingredients and the placement of the foreign ingredients on the ingredient list, she estimated that the foreign ingredients amount to more than 20% of the ingredients in the product. These allegations and other support provided by the consumer create a reasonable inference that the four foreign ingredients in the product constitute more than 10% of the final wholesale value of the manufactured product. The court also concluded that the consumer met the heightened pleading requirements for claims sounding in fraud under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss all causes of action, as they are all based on the false and misleading “Made in the USA” claim relating to the sale of the product.

The Case is No. 3:25-cv-00377-GPC-BLM.

Judge: Curiel, G.

Attorneys: Abbas Kazerounian (Kazerouni Law Group, APC) for Maria Corona. Trenton H. Norris (Hogan Lovells US LLP) for It's a New 10, LLC.

Companies: It's a New 10, LLC

Cases: Advertising CaliforniaNews