John Paul Mitchell class action claims company allows animal testing despite advertising opposite

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

John Paul Mitchell animal testing class action overview: 

• Who: Five haircare consumers are suing John Paul Mitchell Systems. 
• Why: The plaintiffs alleges the company tests on animals, despite promising not to.
• Where: The John Paul Mitchell animal testing class action was filed in a California federal court. 

John Paul Mitchell Systems — which advertises itself as a brand that would never test on animals — actually has been conducting animal testing in order to gain access to a Chinese market, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiffs Randall Heagney, Rica Guerrero, Kerrie Gonnella, John Rohloff and Jewel Rule filed the class action lawsuit against John Paul Mitchell Systems (JPMS) on Feb. 15 in a California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. 

According to the lawsuit, JPMS was founded on the principle that it would never test on animals, promising: “Never have. Never will.” 

Yet, JPMS prioritized its profits over its principles when it sought to enter the Chinese market, the lawsuit alleges. 

“JPMS has not honored its promises, allowing animal testing on numerous products just to gain access to one of the world’s biggest consumer marketplaces, China.”

JPMS tested on animals so it could sell products in China, lawsuit alleges

While portraying itself in the United States as an animal rights pioneer, JPMS opted to sell its products in China where testing on animals was mandatory, the plaintiffs allege.

Since 2015, the examination and testing of cosmetics being sold in China has been governed by a Chinese regulation: Safety and Technical Standards for Cosmetics (2015). 

The specifications include placing the product to be tested in the eye of the animal or on the shaved skin of the animal, leaving that product in the eye or on the skin, and observing its effects at one, 24, 48 and 72 hours after application.

The regulations also provide: “If animals show severe depression and pain at any stage of the trial, they should be executed humanely,” the lawsuit states. 

From May 2015 to May 2021, JPMS Beijing, as JPMS’s domestic responsible agent, registered 63 JPMS products for sale in China, the plaintiffs say.

“Each product received an NMPA registration number, meaning JPMS’s domestic responsible agents submitted an application for each product that included the examination and testing report as outlined in the Safety and Technical Standards for Cosmetics.”

When a company agrees to perform animal testing to gain access to the Chinese market while claiming the opposite in advertising, consumers who purchased products with false representations about them are harmed, the lawsuit alleges. 

The plaintiffs seek to represent anyone who bought JPMS hair care products. They are suing for breach of warranty and violations of California consumer laws, and seek certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs, an order blocking the company from advertising that it doesn’t test on animals and a jury trial. 

Meanwhile, Paul Mitchell is facing a class action lawsuit alleging it makes Invisiblewear Brunette Dry Shampoo that contains dangerously high levels of benzene.

What do you think about the allegations against JPMS in this lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. 

The plaintiffs are represented by Shana E. Scarlett, Robert B. Carey, Leonard W. Aragon and Michella A. Kras of Hagens German Sobol Shapiro LLP. 

The John Paul Mitchell class action lawsuit is Randall Heagney, et al. v. John Paul Mitchell Systems, Case No. 3:23-cv-00687-TSH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. 

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Pure Body Naturals class action alleges beauty products falsely advertised as natural
• Class action alleges Christian Dior falsely advertises its 24-hour foundation with SPF
• Companies face class action lawsuit claims of benzene in aerosol products
• Target settles class action over oil-free cosmetic labeling