Colgate Optic White Toothpaste Class Action Lawsuits Filed Over False Advertising

At least three class action lawsuits have been filed over Colgate Optic White toothpaste, each involving allegations that the manufacturer misled consumers with advertising statements. Given the similar questions of fact and law presented in the cases, a motion has been filed to establish centralized pretrial proceedings for the cases pending in the federal court system.

Colgate Optic White toothpaste has been advertised as a product that “Goes Beyond Surface Stain Removal to Deeply Whiten” teeth via the use of peroxide, according to the lawsuits. Although the manufacturer claimed that the peroxide in Optic White had been proven to whiten teeth, plaintiffs allege that is no the case.

“In fact, Colgate Optic White toothpaste only reaches surface stains by abrading teeth, does not go beyond surface stain removal, and does not deeply whiten teeth,” according to allegations raised in one of the class action lawsuits, which was filed by Melissa Vigiil, of California. “Because Colgate Optic White toothpaste does not function as a whitening agent on intrinsic stains, Defendant’s representations are false and misleading.”

Vigil claims that Colgate-Palmolive Co. made such misleading statements in both television commercials, and on the labels for the toothpaste. However, the complaint notes that a number of dentists have pointed out that peroxide does not deeply whiten teeth and that toothpastes are unable to penetrate the surface of teeth because they are rinsed away too quickly.

In a motion to transfer (PDF) filed with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) last month, Vigil seeks to consolidate her case with two other Colgate Optic White toothpaste class action lawsuits pending throughout the federal court system, indicating that it is expected that additional complaints will be filed and that all of the actions remain in their early stages.

“Absent transfer and consolidation, there would be significant amount of unnecessary duplication, and a needless diversion of judicial resources would be inevitable in the three federal courts hearing these matters,” argues Vigil in the motion seeking to establish a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL). “Moreover, there would be a serious risk of inconsistent and conflicting ruling on critical issues, such as class certification absent transfer and consolidation.”

The U.S. JPML is likely to consider oral arguments on the motion during an upcoming hearing session scheduled for September 29, in Washington, D.C. It is not yet clear whether Colgate-Palmolive will support or oppose having the cases centralized before one judge.