facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 962–63 (alteration

and citation omitted).

There is no dispute that all of Robles’s claims are governed by the reasonable

consumer standard. See id. at 965. Therefore, she must plead facts demonstrating

that there is a probability that the challenged label could mislead “a significant

portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably

in the circumstances.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). This is

“not a negligible burden” and “a plaintiff’s unreasonable assumptions about a

product’s label will not suffice” to prevent dismissal. Moore v. Trader Joe’s Co., 4

F.4th 874, 882 (9th Cir. 2021).

Robles alleges that the front label of certain Purell Advanced Hand Sanitizers

claiming the product either “Kills More than 99.99% of Germs” or “Kills More than

2 99.99% of Most Illness Causing Germs” is misleading. Specifically, Robles alleges

the label claims would lead a consumer to believe that the product has been

scientifically proven to kill all (or all known) germs, especially those that may cause

illness. Robles conceded in her briefing that the front label claims are followed by

an “asterisk directing consumers to the back of the label.” That back label in turn

clarifies that the product “Kills 99.99% of most common germs that may cause

illness.”

Robles fails to state a claim because she did not plausibly allege that the front

label is literally false or that the front label, as clarified by the back label, is false or

misleading. See McGinity v. Procter & Gamble Co., 69 F.4th 1093, 1098 (9th Cir.

2023); see also Moore v. Mars Petcare US, Inc., 966 F.3d 1007, 1017 (9th Cir.

2020). Robles alleges that GOJO lacks any scientific studies conducted on all or all

known germs showing that Purell is 99.99% effective and that the product does not

effectively kill many harmful and common illness-causing germs. These allegations

fail to plausibly claim that the label is literally false as the front label does not claim

it has been tested on each individual type of germ or that it kills the specific germs

identified by Robles, and Robles does not allege that the “many” germs she claims

Purell fails to kill make up more than .01% of all or all known germs.

Further, because the front label is ambiguous as to the population of germs at

issue in the product’s 99.99% effectiveness claim—as implicitly recognized by

3 Robles’s shifting assertions that the label means the product kills 99.99% of all

germs or all known germs—we look to the context available to the consumer in

determining whether the label is misleading. Trader Joe’s, 4 F.4th at 882–83;

McGinity, 69 F.4th at 1099. Rather than contradict the front label, the back label

explains to the consumer what population of germs the 99.99% claim applies to:

“most common germs that may cause illness.” And Robles never plausibly alleges

that the 99.99% claim, as clarified by the back label, is false or misleading. See

McGinity, 69 F.4th at 1099. General knowledge and common sense further inform

the reasonable consumer considering a product. See Trader Joe’s, 4 F.4th at 883–

84. Given that Purell is a low-cost hand sanitizer available on shelves across the

country, a reasonable consumer would not expect this product to kill germs unknown

to science or germs that are not found on the hands. See id.; Mars Petcare, 966 F.3d

at 1018 (brand names can shape reasonable consumer expectations).

By electing to stand on her complaint rather than take the opportunity to

amend granted by the district court, Robles waived any further opportunity to amend.

See Rick-Mik Enters., Inc. v. Equilon Enters., LLC, 532 F.3d 963, 977 (9th Cir.

2008).

AFFIRMED.

4