Colgate Lawsuit: SLS, Kids Toothpaste Lead, and Tom's of Maine Claims

Colgate-Palmolive sells toothpaste under its own name and through two subsidiaries that matter here: Tom's of Maine and Hello Products. The lawsuits fall into three groups.

Colgate Total and sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS)

Fry v. The Colgate-Palmolive Company, No. 3:26-cv-03858, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in July 2026. The plaintiffs say Colgate marketed Colgate Total as a gum health and anti-gingivitis toothpaste without telling buyers it contains SLS, a foaming detergent they describe as a gum irritant. Similar suits were filed the same week against Procter & Gamble over Crest and Haleon over Sensodyne and Parodontax. All three SLS complaints seek to represent California consumers who bought the products for personal use within the past four years.

Heavy metals in Colgate and hello toothpaste

Brower v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, No. 1:25-cv-03348 in the Southern District of New York, was filed in April 2025 by consumers from New York, Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey, Arizona, and California. They allege Colgate toothpastes contained lead and mercury that Colgate knew about and did not disclose.

A separate group of cases targets the hello brand. Browne v. Hello Products LLC, No. 1:25-cv-05698, filed in July 2025 in the Southern District of New York, is the lead case. A California suit, Barton v. Colgate-Palmolive, filed October 22, 2025, alleged that lab testing commissioned by the plaintiffs' lawyers found lead in every tested hello kids variety at levels from 236 to 658 parts per billion. Barton was later moved to New York and consolidated into Browne. For a full breakdown of the hello claims and what the testing does and does not show, see our toothpaste heavy metals lawsuit page.

Tom's of Maine contamination

After an FDA inspection of the Tom's of Maine plant in Sanford, Maine in May 2024, the agency issued a warning letter on November 5, 2024. The letter said the company recovered Pseudomonas aeruginosa in water samples from June 2021 to October 2022 and found the bacterium Paracoccus yeei in a batch of Wicked Cool! Anticavity Toothpaste, among other problems. Consumer class actions followed and were settled together.

On June 25, 2026, Judge J. Paul Oetken partially dismissed Brower v. Colgate-Palmolive, ruling that claims based on Colgate's failure to disclose heavy metals are preempted by federal drug labeling law, because the FDA's rules for anticavity toothpaste do not require that disclosure. He let the plaintiffs keep going on claims that specific marketing statements, such as "Whole Mouth Health" and "Responsibly Made," were misleading. He also dismissed the fraud by omission and unjust enrichment claims, and several plaintiffs who could not tie the cited testing to the products they actually bought. The parties filed a case management plan in August 2026.

In the hello cases, the court granted an unopposed motion on March 12, 2026 to consolidate Barton with the lead Browne case. Hello and Colgate moved to dismiss on June 11, 2026, and briefing finished on August 6, 2026. A ruling had not been issued as of September 2026.

The SLS case against Colgate Total is at the very start: the complaint was filed and served in July 2026, and no judge has ruled on whether the claims can proceed.

The Tom's of Maine case, Rabinowitz v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., No. 2:25-cv-06996 in the Eastern District of New York, settled. The court set a final approval hearing for September 10, 2026. Details are on our Tom's of Maine settlement page.

A proposed class is only a request. No class has been certified in any of the pending Colgate toothpaste cases as of September 2026, so the final definitions, including the class period, could shrink or change.

You probably do not qualify if you only received toothpaste free at a dentist's office, bought it to resell, or bought it outside the states named in a proposed class. For the Tom's of Maine settlement, you are now bound by its release if you were in the class and did not opt out, even if you did not file a claim.

Not sure whether a case covers you? Our guide on how to know if you qualify for a settlement walks through class definitions line by line.

These are economic loss cases. The plaintiffs are asking for money back for a product they say they would not have bought, or would have paid less for, had they known the facts. That usually means small individual amounts.

The Tom's of Maine settlement is the best real example. Colgate and Tom's agreed to pay $2,900,000 into a fund covering claims, notice costs, attorney fees, and service awards. According to the court-authorized notice:

• Without proof of purchase, a household could claim the average suggested retail price for one product.
• With proof of purchase, a household could get a full refund of documented purchases, capped at three products.
• Both amounts were subject to a pro rata reduction if claims exceeded the fund.

If the SLS or heavy metal cases eventually settle, a similar structure is likely: a few dollars per tube, more with receipts. That is why saving receipts and loyalty card records matters. See whether you need proof of purchase for a settlement.

Nothing here should be read as a promise. Cases can be dismissed, as part of Brower already was, and a loss means no payment at all.

Most of these suits rely on state consumer protection laws. In California, that means the Unfair Competition Law, the False Advertising Law, and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, which bar misleading labels and advertising. Plaintiffs in other states rely on their own consumer fraud statutes, plus fraud by omission and unjust enrichment.

Toothpaste with fluoride is regulated by the FDA as an over-the-counter drug, which gives Colgate a strong defense. A federal law, 21 U.S.C. section 379r(a), bars state requirements for over-the-counter drug labels that are "different from" or "in addition to" federal rules. That is why the Brower judge threw out claims that Colgate should have disclosed heavy metals on the label, while keeping claims that voluntary marketing statements were misleading. Expect the same fight in the hello and SLS cases.

The Tom's of Maine claims leaned on the FDA's findings that the plant's methods did not conform to current good manufacturing practice, which under federal law makes the drug products "adulterated."

• Tom's of Maine settlement: the deadline to file a claim, opt out, or object was July 6, 2026. It has passed. If you filed, watch the official site, ToothpasteSettlement.com, for payment timing.
• Pending cases: there is no claim deadline because there is no settlement. If a class is certified or a settlement is reached, the court will approve a notice with dates.
• Your own claim: each state sets a statute of limitations. California's UCL allows four years and its CLRA three years. The proposed SLS class reaches back four years for that reason.

Pending class actions can pause limitations periods for people inside a proposed class, but that protection has limits, especially if a class is never certified.

The Tom's of Maine settlement grew directly out of a government inspection, which is unusual for a consumer class action and makes the underlying facts easier to check. FDA investigators inspected the Sanford, Maine plant from May 7 to May 22, 2024, and the agency's November 5, 2024 warning letter to Colgate-Palmolive's chief executive listed several problems:

• Water contamination. The company recovered Pseudomonas aeruginosa in multiple water samples between June 2021 and October 2022. That water was used to make a batch of Tom's Simply White Clean Mint Paste and for final rinses of equipment, and the incidents were not investigated for product impact.
• Bacteria in finished toothpaste. The bacterium Paracoccus yeei was found in a batch of Wicked Cool! Anticavity Toothpaste, which was released after a retest.
• A black mold-like substance near the water storage tank, within one foot of equipment that touches over-the-counter drug products.
• Uninvestigated complaints. The FDA said about 400 complaints about odor, color, and taste in Tom's toothpastes, including children's products, were not investigated.

Because fluoride toothpaste is regulated as a drug, the FDA said these conditions made the products "adulterated" under federal law. A warning letter is not a court judgment, and it did not order a recall. But it gave the consumer lawyers a documented basis for their claims, which likely helped produce a settlement relatively quickly. The settlement, like most, was reached without Colgate admitting wrongdoing.

If you still have Tom's of Maine toothpaste and are worried, the settlement does not change product safety advice; talk to your dentist, and you can report any reaction to the FDA through MedWatch.

1. Save receipts and download order histories from stores and delivery apps. They may be the difference between a few dollars and a full refund later.
2. Photograph the packaging, including the flavor and lot code.
3. If you filed a Tom's of Maine claim, keep your claim confirmation number.
4. Be wary of anyone who asks for a fee to file a settlement claim. Claims are free and are filed only on the official settlement website.
5. If you believe a toothpaste caused a medical problem, talk to your dentist or doctor first, and keep those records.

If you want to know whether you fit one of the pending cases or have a separate claim, independent attorneys who handle consumer product cases can look at your facts. A free case review takes about two minutes. You can also compare related claims on our pages about deodorant lawsuits and heavy metals in candy.