N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT R YAN EDM UNDSON, on be ha lf of him se lf, a ll othe rs sim ila

rly situa te d a nd the ge ne ra l public , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt, v. THE PR OC TER & GAM B L E C OM PANY, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 11-56664 D.C . No. 3:10-c v-02256-IEG-NLS M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Irm a E. Gonz a le z , C hie f Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d August 7, 2013 ** Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : TALLM AN, C LIFTON, a nd C ALLAHAN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED AUG 09 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without ora l a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Pla intiff-Appe lla nt R y an Edm undson file d a

puta tive c la ss a c tion a ga inst the Proc te r & Gam

ble C om pa ny (“ P& G” ), whic h

m anufa c ture s, m arke ts, a nd se lls

“ Fusion Powe r” and “ Fusion M anua l” sha ving ha ndle s a nd ra z or c a

rtridge s. Edm undson a lle ge d tha

t P& G e nga ge d in fa lse a dve rtising for the s e produc ts in viola tion of C a lifornia ’ s Unfa ir C om pe tition La

w, C a l . B us. & Prof. C ode § 17200- 10, a nd C onsum e r Le ga l R e m e die s Ac t, C a l. C iv. C ode § 1770. Thedistric t c ourt dism isse d Edm

undson’ s a c tion for fa ilure to sta te a c la im . W e have jurisdic tion pursua nt to 28 U.S.C . § 1291. Re vie wing thedistric t c ourt’ s dism issa l de novo, a nd c onstruing all a lle gations in Edm undson’ s favor, W illiams v . Ge rbe r Prods. C o. , 552 F.3d 934, 937 (9th C ir. 2008), we a ffirm . W e have c o nside re d

the pa c k a ging of the Fusion Powe r and Fusion M anua l c artridge s be c a use Edm undson’ s c om

p l a int “ ne c e ssa

rily re lie s” on tha

t pa c ka ging, a

nd the pa rtie s do not dispute

the a uthe ntic ity

of the re produc tions in the re c ord. Marde r v . Lope z , 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th C ir. 2006) (c ita t ions omitte d). 1. Spe c ific , qua

ntifia ble “ sta te m e nts of fa c t” tha

t re fe r to a

produc t’ s a bsolutec ha

ra c t e ristic s m ay

c onstitute

fa lse a d v e rtising, while

ge ne ra l, subje c tive , unve rifia ble c la im s a

re “ m e re puffe ry ” tha

t c annot. N

e w c al Indus., Inc . v . Ik

on Offic e Solution , 513 F.3d 1038, 1053 (9th C i r. 2008). P& G’ s c l a im tha t the bla de s in Fusion Powe r c artridge s “ have a pate nte d bla de c o ating for inc re dible c om fort” 2is not a

m e s sa ge that those c artridge s a re supe rior to Fusion M anua l c artridge s, and, in a ny e ve nt, is non-a c tiona

ble puffe ry

be c a use it is ge ne ra l, subje c tive , a nd c annot be te ste d. Se e C

ook , Pe rk iss &Lie h e

, Inc . v . N . C al. C olle c tion Se rv ., Inc . , 911 F.2d 242, 246 (9th C ir. 1990) (“ [A] dve rtising whic h m e re ly sta te s in ge ne ra l te rm s tha t one produc t is supe rior is not a c t iona ble .” (quota

t ion m arks om itte d)); c f. Southland Sod Farms v . Stov e r Se e d

C o. , 108 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th C i r. 1997) (c om pa ny ’ s a dve rtise m e nt tha

t its slow-growing gra ss re quire d “ 50% Le ss M owing” wa s an a c tiona

ble sta te m e nt of fa c t); Ste rling Drug, Inc . v . FTC , 741 F.2d 1146, 1151–53 (9th C i r. 1984) (c om pa ny ’ s c la im that its bra

nd of a s pirin wa s c onsiste n tly

be tte r tha n othe r brands “ for purity , sta bility , a nd spe e d of disinte gration” wa s prope rly de te rm ine d not to bepuffe ry ). Any supe riority m e ssa ge c onve y e d by

the nam e s a

nd c olor c o ding P& G use s for the two ty pe s of c artridge s, or by

the fa c t tha

t P& G c ha

rge s m ore for Fusion Powe r c artridge s, is e ve n le ss spe c ific and ve rifia ble . 2. Edm

undson’ s c ounte r-argum e nts la c k m e rit. First, thedistric t c ourt did not c re ate a

ne w sta nda rd for puffe ry , but ra

the r prope rly

he ld tha t a c la im m ust be suffic ie ntly spe c ific , e ithe r by re fe re n c e to pa

rtic ula r produc t c h ara c te ristic s or

“ c rite ria for m e a suring a

‘ be tte r’ sha

ve ,” suc h tha t the c la im

c an be te ste d. Se e N e w c al Indus. , 513 F.3d a

t 1053 (a n a c tiona ble sta te m e n t is one“ that is 3qua

ntifia ble , tha t m a k e s a c la im a s to the‘ spe c ific or a

bsolutec h a

ra c t e ristic s of a produc t’ ” (quoting C

o ok , Pe rk i ss & Lie h e , 911 F.2d a

t 246)). Se c ond, the distric t c ourt’ s two dism issa l orde rs, c onside re d toge the r, m ak e c le ar that the c o urt c onside re d P& G’ s a dve rtising in its e ntire ty . Third, e ve n a ssum ing P& G’ s a d ve rtising doe s c o nve y

the m e ssa ge tha

t Fusion Powe r c artridge s a re ge ne ra lly

supe rior to Fusion M anua l c artridge s, the a dve rtising doe s not, c ontra ry to Edm undson’ s a lle g at ions, a sse rt supe riority in te rm s of the spe c ific attribute s of c lose ne ss, c om fort, irrita tion a nd pre ssure . R athe r, the pa c ka ging for Fusion Power c artridge s sa y s only tha t the bla de s in the c artridge s “ have a pat e nte d bla de d c oating for inc re dible c om fort” ; phra se s suc h a s

“ le ss irrita

tion,” “ m ore c o m fort” and “ re duc e [d] pre ssure ” are found on the pa c ka ging for a l l

Fusion c artridge s, a

n d a re a c om pa rison be twe e n Fusion c artridge s a

nd P& G’ s “ M AC H 3” c artridge s , not be t we e n Fusion Powe r and Fusion M an ua l c artridge s. Sim ila

rly , nowhe re doe s the pa c ka ging c la i m tha t Fusion Powe r bla de s a

re m ore c om forta

ble “ vs. Fusion M anua l” bla de s. 3. The distric t c ourt prope rly dism isse d Edm

undson’ s c la im

tha t P& G fa lse ly a dve rtise d

the c om p atibility of Fusion Powe r and Fusion M anua l c artridge s with diffe re nt sha

ving ha ndle s. In his a

m e nde d c om

pla i nt, Edm

undson e xpre ssly pre d ic ate d tha

t c la im on his non-a c tiona

ble supe riority

c la im . 4AFFIRM E D.

5