ACTION: Barton v. Colgate-Palmolive Company
JURISDICTION: United States District Court for the Southern District of California
DATE FILED: October 22, 2025

CLASS DEFINITION
All California consumers who purchased Colgate “hello” children’s toothpaste products during the applicable statutory period prior to the filing of the complaint.

CLASS PERIOD
During the applicable statutory limitations period preceding the filing of the complaint.

SUMMARY

A consumer class action lawsuit filed in federal court in California alleges that Colgate-Palmolive Company misled consumers by marketing its “hello” brand children’s toothpaste as safe and free from harmful ingredients while allegedly failing to disclose that the products contain measurable amounts of lead. According to the complaint, the toothpaste is aggressively marketed toward children and their caregivers through colorful packaging, candy-like flavors, and representations that the products contain natural flavors and lack artificial or undesirable ingredients. The lawsuit claims these representations create the impression that the products are especially safe for children, when in fact the products allegedly contain lead. The plaintiffs contend that if consumers had known the toothpaste contained lead, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid significantly less for them. The lawsuit seeks damages, restitution, and injunctive relief requiring the company to correct its labeling and marketing practices.

ALLEGATIONS

The complaint was filed by two California consumers who allege they purchased Colgate’s “hello” brand children’s toothpaste products for use by their families. The products at issue include both fluoride and fluoride-free varieties marketed for children, including flavored versions such as unicorn sparkle, smiling shark, magical mermaid, dragon dazzle, and fresh watermelon toothpaste.

According to the complaint, Colgate intentionally designed the packaging and marketing of the products to appeal to children and their caregivers. The toothpaste boxes feature bright colors, cartoon animals, fruit imagery, and playful product descriptions that make brushing teeth appear fun and magical. Flavor names and product descriptions are designed to resemble candy or fruit flavors commonly associated with children’s treats.

The lawsuit alleges that these visual and marketing elements are reinforced by representations on the packaging that emphasize product safety and purity. The front and side labels of the toothpaste boxes state that the products contain “natural flavor” and highlight the absence of certain ingredients, including artificial sweeteners, dyes, artificial flavors, preservatives, parabens, and sulfates. According to the complaint, these representations signal to consumers that the toothpaste products are clean, natural, and safe for children.

The plaintiffs allege that these representations are misleading because the products contain measurable levels of lead that are not disclosed on the labeling. The lawsuit claims that lead is a toxic heavy metal that can be particularly harmful to children due to their developing nervous systems and higher likelihood of ingesting toothpaste during brushing.

The complaint alleges that the presence of lead contradicts the marketing message conveyed by the product packaging and labeling. By emphasizing the absence of various undesirable ingredients and presenting the toothpaste as safe and natural, the plaintiffs argue that Colgate created a misleading impression about the overall safety of the products.

According to the lawsuit, the disclosure that the toothpaste contains lead would likely discourage consumers from purchasing the products, particularly when the products are specifically marketed for children. The plaintiffs contend that many parents and caregivers rely on product labels and marketing statements when selecting personal care products for their children, and that safety-related representations play a central role in purchasing decisions.

The complaint further alleges that the company benefited financially from these representations because consumers purchased the toothpaste believing it was a safer option for children compared to competing products. The plaintiffs claim they and other consumers suffered economic harm because they either would not have purchased the toothpaste or would have paid less for it had the alleged presence of lead been disclosed.

The lawsuit asserts that these practices violate California consumer protection laws prohibiting unfair business practices, deceptive advertising, and misleading representations in consumer product marketing. The plaintiffs seek certification of a class of California consumers, as well as damages, restitution, and injunctive relief requiring changes to the labeling and marketing of the products.