MEMORANDUM **
Dana Weiss appeals from the dismissal of her putative class action lawsuit challenging Trader Joes “Alkaline Water + Electrolytes” water bottles. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal for failure to state a claim, and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of leave to amend. We affirm.
1. Trader Joes “Alkaline Water + Electrolytes” features various statements on the bottle, including “ionized to achieve the perfect balance,” “refresh & hydrate,” and holographic plus signs. Weiss claims that those statements as well as other similar ones in Trader Joes online newsletter misled her into believing that the water balances her internal bodily pH and provides superior hydration compared to other beverages.
2. The district court properly dismissed the consumer protection claims. Claims under the Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act are all governed by the reasonable consumer standard. Williams v. Gerber Prods. Co., 552 F.3d 934, 938 (9th Cir. 2008). Under the reasonable consumer standard, a plaintiff must show “that it is probable that a significant portion of the general consuming public or of targeted consumers, acting reasonably in the circumstances, could be misled” by the challenged statements. Lavie v. Procter & Gamble Co., 105 Cal.App.4th 496, 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 486, 495 (2003).
We agree with the district courts well-reasoned analysis of the challenged statements. A reasonable consumer would not interpret any of the challenged representations to suggest either internal pH balancing or superior hydration. When considered within the context of the water bottle packaging as a whole, the phrase “ionized to achieve the perfect balance” clearly refers to the water itself being balanced. No reasonable consumer would interpret that statement to mean that the water itself will balance the consumers own pH levels. See Freeman v. Time, Inc., 68 F.3d 285, 290 (9th Cir. 1995) (explaining that product packaging should be examined in its full context because it would be unreasonable to cherry-pick discrete statements to prove deception). Simply put, a reasonable consumer does not check her common sense at the door of the store. The rest of the challenged statements either constitute true expressions about the hydrating capability of water or are otherwise nonactionable puffery. See Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Sol., 513 F.3d 1038, 1053 (9th Cir. 2008) (summarizing puffery standard).
3. The district court also properly dismissed the breach of warranty claims. Although the reasonable consumer standard technically does not apply to the warranty claims, those claims still require some sort of actionable representation. Weinstat v. Dentsply Intl, Inc., 180 Cal.App.4th 1213, 103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 614, 626 (2010). Here, Weiss premises her warranty claims on the exact same representations as her consumer protection claims. Nothing in the labeling or advertising promises that the alkaline water will help consumers achieve a perfect balance or provide superior hydration. Thus, we affirm the district courts dismissal of the breach of warranty claims.
4. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the complaint without leave to amend because the complaint here cannot be saved by amendment. “Dismissal without leave to amend is proper if it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by amendment.” Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted).
AFFIRMED.