Procter & Gamble (P&G) is facing a lawsuit in the US over allegations that its Kid’s Crest toothpaste packaging promotes unsafe amounts of toothpaste for children. The lawsuit, filed by a group of parents, claims that the packaging features an image of a full strip of toothpaste on a toothbrush, which is contrary to the recommended amount for children. The American Dental Association recommends that children under three use only a “smear” of toothpaste, roughly the size of a rice grain, to avoid excessive fluoride exposure.
The lawsuit alleges that P&G’s packaging is misleading and deceptive, as it suggests that the product is safe for children to swallow, when in fact excessive fluoride exposure can be harmful. The plaintiffs claim that P&G is infringing consumer protection laws by failing to sufficiently warn parents about the potential risks of excessive fluoride exposure.
P&G had sought to have the case dismissed, arguing that federal law regulates fluoride toothpaste labeling and that state-level lawsuits like this should not proceed. However, District Judge Jorge Alonso rejected this argument, ruling that federal preemption does not apply to this case because the plaintiffs are not seeking labeling changes that conflict with FDA regulations. Instead, they are alleging that P&G is using misleading marketing imagery, which falls under state consumer protection law.
The lawsuit is one of six filed in January against toothpaste and rinse makers, including Colgate-Palmolive, over alleged misleading packaging. The case highlights the importance of accurate and clear labeling on consumer products, particularly those intended for children. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that children who begin brushing at the age of two should use a “smear” of toothpaste until the age of three, and P&G’s packaging has been criticized for not reflecting this guidance.
The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the toothpaste industry, as it may lead to changes in packaging and labeling to ensure that consumers are aware of the potential risks of excessive fluoride exposure. The lawyer for the parents, Michael Connett, has stated that the recent court decisions are an encouraging sign that companies may finally be held to account for their marketing practices. The case is ongoing, and P&G has not commented on the allegations.