Case Information

CASE NAME: Fry et al. v. The Colgate-Palmolive Company

CASE NO.: 26-cv-03858

JURISDICTION: US District Court for the Southern District of California

FILED ON: July 2, 2026

Class Definition

All persons in California who, during the four years before the complaint was filed and up to the date of class notice, purchased any of the challenged Colgate Total toothpastes for personal or household use.

Summary

According to the complaint, three California consumers have filed a putative class action against The Colgate-Palmolive Company, alleging that Colgate’s “Colgate Total SF” and “Colgate Total Active Prevention” toothpastes are deceptively marketed as promoting oral and gum health and treating gingivitis while containing sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS), an ingredient the lawsuit characterizes as an oral irritant associated with gum tissue damage, delayed wound healing, and disruption of the oral microbiome.

The complaint contends that Colgate’s labels and advertising create the impression that these products improve and protect gum health and provide superior antigingivitis benefits, yet the inclusion of SLS allegedly undermines these representations. Plaintiffs assert they paid a price premium for these products based on Colgate’s gum-health messaging and would not have purchased them, or would have paid less, had they known about the presence and alleged effects of SLS. The lawsuit seeks monetary relief, restitution, and injunctive relief, including changes to labeling and potentially to the products’ formulation and use of SLS.

Allegations

Marketing Claims

The lawsuit alleges that Colgate markets Colgate Total SF and Colgate Total Active Prevention as advanced oral-care products that deliver specific and powerful gum-health benefits. According to the complaint, the packaging and advertising describe these toothpastes as “antigingivitis” products that fight the root cause of gingivitis, provide 24-hour antibacterial protection with twice-daily brushing, and offer “superior performance” against common oral care issues.

The labels allegedly highlight benefits for gums, claiming to:

• fight bacteria on the gums,
• help prevent and reduce gingivitis,
• reverse early gum damage, and
• support “Whole Mouth Health.”

Plaintiffs assert that these consistent marketing statements create a uniform net impression that the products are particularly suited to protect and improve gum health.

SLS Allegations

The complaint contends that all of the challenged Colgate Total products contain SLS at levels typical of commercial toothpastes, approximately 1–1.5 percent. The lawsuit describes SLS as an anionic surfactant detergent and “known irritant,” citing scientific literature that allegedly links SLS exposure in the mouth to:

• irritation and damage of oral and gum tissues,
• epithelial sloughing,
• increased incidence of canker sores,
• various allergic or contact-sensitivity reactions,
• impaired gingival wound healing,
• disruption of the oral microbiome (including increasing pathogenic bacteria and promoting inflammatory responses), and
• contribution to bone loss.

The complaint also asserts that SLS can denature proteins in the oral mucosa, increase mucosal permeability, and compromise the barrier function of the gums and oral tissues.

Consumer Expectation and Market Context

According to the complaint, consumers who seek out gum-health or antigingivitis toothpastes reasonably expect these products will not contain ingredients that are widely discussed in the scientific literature as oral irritants or as interfering with healing of gum tissue. Plaintiffs claim that, by heavily emphasizing gum and gingivitis benefits while formulating the products with SLS, Colgate’s marketing is misleading and likely to deceive reasonable consumers about the products’ suitability for gum health.

The complaint further alleges that Colgate is aware of the concerns surrounding SLS and of consumer demand for SLS-free toothpastes. As support, the complaint points to Colgate’s own “Gum Protect SLS Free” product and to other brands that advertise SLS-free formulations, asserting that this marketplace behavior demonstrates that the presence or absence of SLS is material to consumers.

The complaint alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act, as well as breach of express warranty and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution and disgorgement of profits, damages, attorneys’ fees, and injunctive relief requiring Colgate to cease the challenged marketing practices, correct its labeling, and, if ordered by the court, recall or relabel products and discontinue the use of SLS or disclose its alleged oral health effects.