CASE NAME: Bria Harris v. Prestige Consumer Healthcare, Inc., et al.
CASE NO.: Not specified
JURISDICTION: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles
FILED ON: April 30, 2026
CLASS DEFINITION: All California residents who purchased the defendant’s feminine hygiene products in California during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint.

SUMMARY:
Prestige Consumer Healthcare, Inc. and C.B. Fleet Company are facing a class action lawsuit alleging that they falsely and misleadingly market their “Summer’s Eve” feminine hygiene products as necessary, safe, and beneficial for women’s intimate care. The lawsuit claims that the defendants promote these products as essential for odor control and cleanliness, despite medical consensus that such products are unnecessary and may even pose health risks. The plaintiff alleges that consumers were misled into believing that routine hygiene is insufficient and that specialized products are required, leading them to purchase these items at a premium price.

ALLEGATIONS:
The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a widespread and uniform marketing campaign promoting a variety of feminine hygiene products—including washes, wipes, sprays, deodorants, and douches—as essential for maintaining cleanliness and odor control in women’s intimate areas. According to the lawsuit, these products are marketed with claims such as “odor protection,” “gynecologist tested,” “clinically tested,” and “safe for sensitive skin,” which collectively create the impression that they are medically endorsed and necessary for proper hygiene.

The plaintiff contends that these representations are false and misleading because medical consensus establishes that the vagina is a self-cleaning organ and does not require specialized cleansing products. According to the complaint, routine hygiene with water is generally sufficient for maintaining cleanliness, and the use of such products is not recommended by healthcare professionals. The lawsuit further alleges that the defendants exploit consumer insecurities about natural bodily odors to drive sales.

In addition, the complaint alleges that the defendants fail to disclose material information about the potential risks associated with using these products. According to the lawsuit, the use of feminine hygiene products—particularly douches—may disrupt the natural balance of bacteria and pH levels in the vaginal area, potentially leading to adverse health outcomes such as bacterial vaginosis, infections, and other complications. The plaintiff claims that these risks are not adequately disclosed and that existing warnings are limited, conditional, and insufficient to inform consumers about the potential harms of routine use.

The complaint also asserts that the defendants’ marketing blurs the distinction between external and internal use, potentially leading consumers to believe that the products are appropriate for use in the vaginal canal. According to the lawsuit, many consumers do not understand anatomical differences between the vulva and vagina, and the labeling fails to provide clear guidance or limitations on proper use.

The plaintiff further alleges that consumers relied on the defendants’ representations when purchasing the products and would not have done so, or would have paid less, had they known the truth. As a result, the complaint claims that consumers suffered economic harm by paying a premium for products that are unnecessary and potentially harmful.

Based on these allegations, the lawsuit asserts violations of California’s False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, restitution, damages, and other remedies on behalf of herself and similarly situated consumers.

Tell us what you think.