Tampon Lead Lawsuit: Tampax, Kotex, o.b., and Cora Heavy Metal Claims

The lawsuits grew out of a study published in July 2024 in Environment International, led by UC Berkeley postdoctoral scholar Jenni A. Shearston. The researchers measured 16 metals in 30 tampons from 14 brands bought in the U.S., the U.K., and Europe, and detected all of them, including lead, arsenic, and cadmium. They found no category, organic or not, store brand or name brand, that was consistently lower across the board. The study did not measure how much metal, if any, is absorbed by the body.

Within weeks, consumer class actions followed. They are economic loss cases: the buyers say they paid for products marketed as safe and would not have bought them, or would have paid less, had they known about the lead.

Tampax (Procter & Gamble)

Barton v. The Procter & Gamble Company was filed July 29, 2024 and is assigned to Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel. It covers Tampax Pearl and Tampax Radiant. The complaint says independent lab testing found lead in the products and that ordinary use would exceed the Proposition 65 maximum allowable dose level of 0.5 micrograms of lead per day. It challenges box claims such as "#1 U.S. Gynecologist Recommended Tampon Brand," "Free of Perfume," and "Free of Elemental Chlorine Bleaching" as misleading in context.

Kotex (Kimberly-Clark)

Barton v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation, No. 3:24-cv-01337, filed July 30, 2024 before the same judge, targets U by Kotex Click compact tampons with the same theory. Separately, the nonprofit Toxin Free USA sued Kimberly-Clark on September 30, 2024 in Washington, D.C. under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, pointing to Kotex's statement that it prohibits heavy metals such as lead.

o.b. and Playtex (Edgewell)

We found no verified lead or heavy metal class action against o.b. or Playtex. Earlier suits claiming o.b. Organic and Playtex Gentle Glide contained PFAS were dismissed on January 12, 2024 in Lowe v. Edgewell Personal Care Co. (N.D. Cal.), because the plaintiffs' testing allegations were too thin.

Cora

As of September 2026, we found no filed class action against Cora over heavy metals. Pages claiming a Cora lawsuit or settlement did not identify a court or case number.

Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark deny the allegations. Nothing has been proven.

Both companies won partial dismissals in February 2025, and the plaintiffs amended. Then, in the key rulings, Judge Curiel denied most of P&G's second motion to dismiss on August 8, 2025, and most of Kimberly-Clark's on August 13, 2025, throwing out only the "unfair" prong of the California Unfair Competition Law claim. The rest of the consumer protection claims moved forward.

In the Tampax case, the court denied P&G's request to move the case to Ohio on December 11, 2025. The plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on May 13, 2026; P&G opposed it on June 10, 2026 and moved to exclude the plaintiff's expert. The court held a hearing on July 31, 2026. We could not confirm a written ruling on the public docket as of late September 2026, and filings continued through September.

The Kotex docket shows another dismissal motion filed November 21, 2025 and an order on December 2, 2025. The public docket does not show the details of that order, so if you bought U by Kotex, check the court record or ask an attorney for the current status.

Tampons are regulated by the FDA as medical devices. After the Berkeley study, the agency commissioned a literature review and ran its own lab tests. In July 2026, it announced results published in the journal Toxicological Sciences.

• FDA scientists analyzed 11 tampon products legally sold in the U.S.
• They extracted metals under exaggerated conditions (acidified water at 50 degrees Celsius for 24 hours) to estimate a worst case.
• The FDA reported margins of safety of 7 or greater and concluded that metal levels released from tampons are not expected to result in adverse health effects.

That finding does not end the lawsuits, which are about whether labels were misleading rather than whether anyone was poisoned. But it will likely shape how juries and judges view the materiality of the lead, and it is a good reason to be skeptical of anyone promising large payouts for tampon use alone.

It helps to read the two studies side by side. The Berkeley-led researchers measured the total amount of each metal in the tampon material; their study was designed to detect whether metals were present, and it did not test how much, if any, is absorbed through vaginal tissue. The FDA's study tried to answer that second question by measuring how much metal leaches out under extreme conditions and comparing it with toxicological safety thresholds. The Berkeley team said it was unclear whether the metals contribute to any health effects and that future research would test how much can leach out and be absorbed, and the FDA says its results are consistent with an independent literature review it commissioned. Both findings can be true at once: metals are present in tampons, and the amount released may be too small to matter.

If a class is certified in the Tampax case, the court will define who is in it, including the class period. People outside California would generally not be included in these cases as filed. See what class certification means for how that decision works.

If the Tampax or Kotex cases succeed or settle, the likely measure is a refund or price premium: part of what buyers paid for the boxes during the class period. As of September 2026, no tampon heavy metal lawsuit had produced a settlement, a verdict, or a claim form. Because tampons are a low-cost product, even a full refund across several years of purchases would usually be modest. Receipts or subscription histories often let a claimant recover more than the no-proof tier.

Personal injury claims are a different matter. They require a diagnosed condition and evidence linking it to the product, and the FDA's 2026 findings make that link hard to show. Be cautious with ads implying large payouts for tampon use.

For how settlement funds are divided, see how class action money is divided.

The California cases rely on the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law, and the Unfair Competition Law. The theory is that label claims about safety and purity implied the tampons were free of harmful contaminants, and that omitting the lead made those claims misleading to a reasonable consumer.

Proposition 65 matters because it sets a concrete benchmark: California lists a maximum allowable dose level of 0.5 micrograms of lead per day for reproductive toxicity, and the plaintiffs say ordinary tampon use exceeds it. The defense argues that a benchmark based on ingestion does not fit a product worn internally, and that testing of other people's tampons does not prove what was in any plaintiff's box.

Deadlines follow state law. In California, the CLRA has a three-year statute of limitations and the UCL four years.

Many product contamination class actions die at the first motion to dismiss. The Tampax case did not, and the judge's August 8, 2025 order explains why in terms that matter for anyone deciding whether to hold on to receipts.

• The plaintiffs changed their theory. After the first round, they dropped a fraudulent omission claim, which would have required them to show the lead was an unreasonable safety hazard. They now argue that the box claims themselves mislead buyers into thinking the tampons are free of potentially harmful elements. The court noted the plaintiffs are not claiming they bought unsafe tampons, but that they do not want to buy tampons containing lead and would not have bought these had they known.
• Specific testing. The complaint says an independent, accredited lab tested homogenized samples of Tampax products in July 2024 using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS), a precise method for measuring metals, and that daily use would exceed California's Proposition 65 dose level regardless of tampon size.
• Specific label claims. The challenged statements are concrete: "#1 U.S. Gynecologist Recommended Tampon Brand," "Free of Perfume," "Free of Elemental Chlorine Bleaching," "Tampon Free of Dyes," and "Clinically Tested Gentle to Skin."

The only claim the judge threw out in August 2025 was the "unfair" prong of California's Unfair Competition Law, dismissed with prejudice. The rest of the claims, including those under the False Advertising Law and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, went forward.

Surviving a motion to dismiss is not winning. The next hurdle, class certification, asks whether the case can be tried for everyone at once, including whether a common method exists to measure the price premium buyers paid. P&G has also moved to exclude the plaintiff's expert. The FDA's July 2026 findings will also be part of the defense's argument that the lead levels are not material to reasonable buyers.

1. Save purchase records, especially subscription and online orders, which are easy to download now and hard to find later.
2. Photograph the boxes you have, including lot numbers.
3. If you have symptoms or a diagnosis you are worried about, see a clinician and keep those records. The FDA's tampon page has current safety information.
4. Do not pay anyone to "join" a tampon lawsuit. Proposed class members do not need to sign up, and any settlement will be claimed free on an official website.

If you want to know whether your purchases fit the Tampax or Kotex case, or whether a health issue could support an individual claim, independent attorneys who handle product cases can look at your situation. A free case review takes about two minutes. Related pages: toothpaste heavy metals and PFAS in consumer products.