Colgate toothpaste lawsuit: what it claims and where it stands
The Colgate toothpaste lawsuit alleges heavy metals in eight toothpastes. A June 2026 ruling narrowed it. See what survives and whether you can claim.

The Colgate toothpaste lawsuit is an active proposed class action, and there is no money to claim. Buyers allege eight Colgate toothpastes contained or risked containing heavy metals such as lead and mercury and were marketed with lines like "Responsibly Made." In Brower v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (No. 1:25-cv-03348, Southern District of New York), a June 25, 2026 ruling threw out claims based on what Colgate failed to disclose but let misrepresentation claims continue for some plaintiffs. No class is certified, there is no settlement and there is no claim form. Colgate disputes the claims, and nothing has been proven.
What the Colgate toothpaste lawsuit claims
Eleven buyers from several states sued Colgate-Palmolive in federal court in New York. They say eight Colgate toothpastes contained, or risked containing, heavy metals including lead and mercury, and that Colgate did not disclose it or tell shoppers it was not adequately testing for them. They also say lines such as "Whole Mouth Health" and "Responsibly Made" misled people into thinking the products were clean and suitable. The toothpastes named in the complaint:
- Colgate Watermelon Burst Toothpaste with Fluoride (for Kids)
- Colgate Total Whitening, Total Active Prevention Advanced Whitening, Total Active Prevention Whitening and Total Active Prevention
- Colgate MaxFresh with Whitening
- Colgate Triple Action
- Colgate Baking Soda & Peroxide Whitening
The case began on April 22, 2025 and is before Judge J. Paul Oetken. The buyers rely on consumer protection laws in New York, Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey, Arizona and California, and they ask for money damages, an injunction and attorneys' fees. Colgate disputes the claims. The court has not decided whether any toothpaste is unsafe. For background on how these cases are built, see what a class action lawsuit is.
What the June 2026 ruling changed
Colgate asked the judge to throw out the whole complaint. On June 25, 2026 the judge agreed in part. That ruling matters more than anything else in the case so far, because it decides which theories can go forward.
In plain terms, a claim that Colgate should have printed a warning about heavy metals is out, because federal rules set what goes on a toothpaste label and do not require that disclosure. A claim that specific marketing statements were misleading, given what the plaintiffs say was in the tubes, can continue. The judge also narrowed who can sue: plaintiffs need test results tied to the products they bought, and several did not have them. Seven of the original eleven plaintiffs remain, each tied to certain products, and some are limited to lead-based claims.
| Issue | Ruling | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Claims that Colgate failed to disclose heavy metals | Dismissed | Federal law is held to preempt a state-law duty to add that disclosure |
| Claims that marketing statements were misleading | Allowed to continue | This is the core of what is left |
| Plaintiffs with no tests of the tubes they bought | Dismissed for lack of standing in several instances | Seven of the eleven plaintiffs remain, tied to specific products |
| Three of the thirteen counts (four, twelve and thirteen) | Dismissed with prejudice | They cannot be refiled in this case |
Who is in the proposed class
No class has been certified, and the docket shows no request to certify one yet. The plaintiffs propose a nationwide class and six state groups, called subclasses. Each covers people who bought the named toothpastes for household use, not for resale, going back to the start of the legal time limit that applies and running to the present. Those time limits differ by state, which is why the complaint gives no single start date.
If you bought one of these toothpastes for your family, you may eventually be a class member, but only a judge can create the class. Until then you are simply a shopper who might be covered.
| Group | Who it would cover |
|---|---|
| Nationwide Class | People who bought the toothpastes in the U.S. for household use, not resale |
| State subclasses | The same, limited to purchases in New York, Minnesota, Illinois, New Jersey, Arizona or California |
Where the Colgate case stands
The case has moved past the first fight and into the evidence stage. Colgate answered the surviving claims on July 23, 2026, and a case management plan followed on August 27, 2026. The public docket shows the most recent activity as an October 12, 2026 order on a request for more time, and it shows no class certification, settlement or claims process. Public docket sites can lag, so check the court record for newer filings.
| Event | Date |
|---|---|
| Lawsuit filed | April 22, 2025 |
| Second Amended Complaint, the current version | August 7, 2025 |
| Colgate asks to dismiss everything | September 8, 2025 |
| Judge rules: granted in part, denied in part | June 25, 2026 |
| Colgate files its answer | July 23, 2026 |
| Case management plan filed | August 27, 2026 |
| Latest entry seen, an order on a request for more time | October 12, 2026 |
| Class certification or settlement | Not on the docket yet |
What could happen next, and how long it takes
The next phase is discovery, when both sides swap documents and testing data. After that the plaintiffs would ask the judge to certify a class, and the case would head toward a ruling, a trial or a settlement. Cases like this commonly take years from filing, and the June ruling removed the broadest theory, so any class that is ever certified may be narrower than the one first proposed. The judge's decision to let the misrepresentation claims continue does not mean the plaintiffs will win. Our explainer on what happens after a class action is certified covers the later steps.
If a settlement does come, a court-approved notice would explain who qualifies, what proof is needed and how to file. The complaint asks for money damages, but no amount is announced and any payment would depend on a settlement or a verdict. Many cases end without one.
What you should do now
There is no sign-up and nothing to file. You cannot join a proposed class action ahead of time, and nobody legitimate will charge you to get in line. If you bought these toothpastes, keep any receipts, loyalty-card history or online order records you can find, since claim forms often ask for them. Our guide to proof of purchase for class action claims shows what counts.
Be wary of any page advertising a Colgate toothpaste settlement right now, because no claim form exists and fake notices are a common way to collect personal details. See how to spot a settlement scam and what to do when a brand you bought gets sued. If you have a health concern about a product, ask your dentist or pediatrician, since this lawsuit does not answer that question.
How to get notified if the Colgate case settles
Filing a claim directly with a settlement administrator is always free, but there is nothing to file yet. The goal for now is to hear quickly if that changes.
- Set up docket alerts for Brower v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. on CourtListener, so new filings reach you by email.
- If a class is certified or a deal is reached, watch for a court-authorized notice by email or mail, and check the administrator's name and website against the court docket before clicking.
- Keep your purchase records where you can find them.
- Read how to get notified of class action settlements for other ways to follow a case.
- Browse the settlements directory to see which cases are paying out now.
Where Owed fits in
Owed finds the settlements you may qualify for, explains them in plain English, opens the official claim form, reminds you before deadlines and tracks each claim to payout, while you submit any claim yourself. If this case settles, you can try Owed to keep it alongside the rest of your list. Owed Pro is $2 for the first week, then $49 per year — one flat membership. Owed never takes a percentage of any payout.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Owed is not a law firm or a settlement administrator; the court decides who is in any class and what, if anything, class members receive.
Glossary
- Preemption
- When federal law overrides a state-law requirement. Here the judge held that federal toothpaste labeling rules block a claim that Colgate had to disclose heavy metals.
- Standing
- A plaintiff's right to sue, which requires a real injury tied to the defendant. Several plaintiffs here lost standing for products they could not show were tested.
- Class certification
- A judge's decision that a case can go forward for a whole group. Until then the "class" is only proposed.
- Subclass
- A smaller group within a class, such as buyers in one state, often because state laws differ.
- Discovery
- The stage where each side requests documents, test results and testimony from the other.
FAQ
No. The Colgate toothpaste case is still being litigated, and the court record shows no settlement, fund or claim form. Treat any page offering a Colgate toothpaste settlement claim as suspect.
Buyers allege eight Colgate toothpastes contained or risked containing heavy metals such as lead and mercury, and that Colgate's marketing, including "Responsibly Made," misled them. Colgate disputes the claims and the allegations are unproven.
The complaint names Watermelon Burst (for kids), Total Whitening, Total Active Prevention Advanced Whitening, Total Active Prevention Whitening, Total Active Prevention, MaxFresh with Whitening, Triple Action, and Baking Soda & Peroxide Whitening.
Not yet. The plaintiffs propose a nationwide class of buyers and six state subclasses, but no judge has certified a class. You would be notified if one is certified or the case settles.
On June 25, 2026 the judge dismissed claims based on failing to disclose heavy metals, because federal law governs the label, and let claims based on misleading marketing statements continue for the plaintiffs who remain.
Nothing is available now and no amount is announced. The complaint seeks money damages, but any payment would depend on a future settlement or verdict.
- CourtListener docket: Brower v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. (S.D.N.Y. 1:25-cv-03348)
- Opinion and Order on the motion to dismiss (June 25, 2026)
- Second Amended Class Action Complaint (Aug. 7, 2025)
- Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 — class actions
This article is based on public information as of Oct 22, 2026; features, prices and deadlines change. Owed is not a law firm and nothing here is legal, tax or financial advice. Corrections →


