CASE NAME: Garland et al. v. Haleon US, Inc.

CASE NO.: 3:26-cv-03855-GPC-JAC

JURISDICTION: United States District Court for the Southern District of California

FILED ON: July 2, 2026

CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to represent all California consumers who purchased the challenged Sensodyne and Parodontax toothpaste products for personal or household use during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint through the date class notice is provided.

SUMMARY:

According to the complaint, Haleon US, Inc. deceptively marketed several Sensodyne and Parodontax toothpastes as products that improve gum health, reduce gingivitis, and promote healthier gums while formulating those products with sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), an ingredient the lawsuit alleges has been widely associated in scientific literature with oral irritation and other adverse effects. The plaintiffs contend that consumers reasonably relied on the products’ prominent gum health claims and were not informed that the toothpaste allegedly contained an ingredient capable of irritating oral tissues, delaying healing, or contributing to gum-related problems. The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief requiring Haleon to stop the allegedly misleading marketing practices.

ALLEGATIONS:

Haleon manufactures and sells multiple Sensodyne and Parodontax toothpaste products that prominently advertise benefits such as helping prevent gingivitis, improving gum health, reducing bleeding gums, repairing early gum disease, and strengthening the gum seal around teeth. The lawsuit alleges these marketing claims create the overall impression that the products are specifically designed to improve oral and gum health.

The complaint argues that these representations are misleading because the products contain sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), a foaming detergent commonly used in toothpaste. According to the lawsuit, numerous scientific publications have reported that SLS can irritate oral tissues, contribute to inflammation, damage the protective lining of the mouth, delay wound healing, trigger allergic or contact-sensitivity reactions, promote epithelial sloughing, and increase the occurrence of canker sores in susceptible individuals.

The plaintiffs cite numerous academic studies that they contend demonstrate SLS may interfere with gingival fibroblasts, inhibit healing of gum tissue, increase oral tissue permeability, and disrupt the natural oral microbiome. The complaint also references research that allegedly found SLS-free toothpastes reduced ulcer duration and irritation compared to toothpastes containing SLS.

According to the complaint, consumers purchasing gum-health toothpaste specifically seek products intended to improve sensitive or diseased gums and would not expect those products to contain an ingredient allegedly associated with irritation or impaired healing. The lawsuit further alleges that other toothpaste manufacturers market SLS-free products, demonstrating that the presence or absence of SLS is material to purchasing decisions.

The plaintiffs contend Haleon failed to disclose the alleged oral health risks associated with SLS while simultaneously emphasizing the products’ gum-health benefits. Although SLS appears in the ingredient list, the complaint alleges average consumers are generally unfamiliar with the ingredient and its purported effects, making the omission of additional disclosures misleading.

The complaint identifies several toothpaste varieties included in the proposed class action, including Sensodyne Complete Protection, Sensodyne Sensitivity & Gum, Parodontax Complete Protection, Parodontax Active Gum Repair, Parodontax Daily Gum Care, and Parodontax Gum Strengthen & Protect.

The three named plaintiffs allege they purchased various Sensodyne and Parodontax products after relying on statements regarding gum health, bleeding gums, gingivitis prevention, and gum repair. They claim they were unaware the products contained SLS and state they would not have purchased the products, or would have paid less for them, had they known of the alleged risks described in the complaint. One plaintiff further alleges she experienced gum irritation while using Parodontax products and observed improvement after discontinuing their use.

The lawsuit asserts that Haleon’s conduct violated California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and also includes claims for breach of warranty. The plaintiffs seek certification of a statewide class, restitution, damages, attorneys’ fees, and a court order prohibiting Haleon from continuing the challenged marketing practices unless appropriate disclosures are made or the alleged deception is otherwise remedied.