Paul Mitchell class action lawsuit overview:
- Who: A group of consumers filed a class action lawsuit against John Paul Mitchell Systems.
- Why: The plaintiffs claim the company falsely advertised its cruelty-free products as cruelty-free, when they were actually tested on animals.
- Where: The Paul Mitchell class action lawsuit was filed in California federal court.
A new class action lawsuit accuses John Paul Mitchell Systems of falsely advertising its products as cruelty-free.
A group of more than 20 plaintiffs allege that Paul Mitchell falsely advertised its cruelty-free products as cruelty-free even though they were tested on animals to gain access to the Chinese market, where animal testing was required.
Paul Mitchell has a long history of promoting its cruelty-free stance, the plaintiffs say, adding that the company has been making this claim since its founding in 1980.
The company’s website, social media and product labels all prominently display statements like “Never Animal Tested,” “No Animal Testing” and “A Pioneer in Cruelty-Free Hair Care,” the Paul Mitchell class action lawsuit says.
The plaintiffs argue that these claims were false and misleading, as Paul Mitchell knowingly allowed animal testing on its products to sell them in China, where such testing was mandatory.
“Despite founding its company on the principle that it would never test on animals, repeating that promise for over 40 years, and seeking to change California law to punish those who test on animals, JPMS prioritized its profits over its principles,” the Paul Mitchell class action lawsuit says.
Class action: Paul Mitchell falsely claims it never tests products on animals in China
The plaintiffs allege that Paul Mitchell’s decision to sell in China contradicts its public image as a cruelty-free pioneer.
The company claimed that it never tested on animals anywhere in the world, including China, the Paul Mitchell class action lawsuit says. However, the plaintiffs argue that Paul Mitchell sold its cruelty-free products during the class period in China, where animal testing was mandatory for companies like JPMS.
The plaintiffs allege that Paul Mitchell’s actions caused them and other consumers to overpay for products they believed were cruelty-free. They argue that the company’s false advertising violated state consumer protection laws and breached express warranties.
The plaintiffs are seeking damages for themselves and other consumers who purchased Paul Mitchell products during the class period.
In other animal cruelty claims, a consumer is suing milk company Fairlife for falsely advertising its products as being made with milk from cows that are well cared for.
What do you think of the allegations made in this Paul Mitchell class action lawsuit? Join the discussion in the comments.
The plaintiffs are represented by Christopher R. Pitoun of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.
The Paul Mitchell class action lawsuit is Howell, et al. v. John Paul Mitchell Systems, Case No. 2:26-cv-01986, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
Don’t Miss Out!
Check out our list of Class Action Lawsuits and Class Action Settlements you may qualify to join!
Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
- Empire Hotel Group sued over hotel room prices that increase with hidden fees
- Consumers sue GM in class action over Cadillac Lyriq EV defects
- Toyota recalls Corolla Cross Hybrid SUVs over pedestrian warning sound issue
- California’s Raw Farm issues voluntary recall of cheddar cheese amid E. coli outbreak
