{"id":12466,"date":"2026-03-30T04:15:58","date_gmt":"2026-03-30T08:15:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.packagingindustrynews.com\/?p=12466"},"modified":"2026-03-30T04:15:58","modified_gmt":"2026-03-30T08:15:58","slug":"us-judge-allows-class-action-against-colgate-on-kids-rinse-labels-report","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.packagingindustrynews.com\/?p=12466","title":{"rendered":"US judge allows class action against Colgate on kids\u2019 rinse labels \u2013 report"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n \n <\/picture>
Last year, Colgate agreed to alter packaging for its toothpaste after a probe. Credit: monticello \/ Shutterstock.com.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p><\/div>\n

A US federal judge has ruled that Colgate-Palmolive must face two proposed class actions over alleged misleading packaging for children\u2019s mouth rinses, Reuters<\/a> <\/em>reported.<\/p>\n

The judge has dismissed a similar case involving toothpaste.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\"\"\/<\/figure>\n

Discover B2B Marketing That Performs <\/h4>\n

\n\t\t\t\t\t\tCombine business intelligence and editorial excellence to reach engaged professionals across 36 leading media platforms.\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n


\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tFind out more <\/svg><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n<\/section>\n<\/div>\n

Plaintiffs say Colgate\u2019s colourful packaging and flavours such as Bubble Fruit and Silly Strawberry suggest the rinses are safe for children under six.<\/p>\n

They said that this is despite US health guidance saying that children under six years of age should not use fluoride rinses and that children aged two to six years should use only \u201cpea-sized\u201d amounts of fluoride toothpaste.<\/p>\n

US District Judge Andrea Wood in Chicago said reasonable consumers might not know where to \u201cdraw the line\u201d on rinses when labels prominently feature \u201ckids\u201d or \u201cchildren\u2019s\u201d.<\/p>\n

She rejected Colgate\u2019s claim that shoppers would recognise rinses as over-the-counter drugs and rely on back-label FDA warnings.<\/p>\n

Wood found toothpaste labels different because they already direct children aged between two and six years to use pea-sized amounts.<\/p>\n

She wrote: \u201cViewed in context, the toothbrush with a full strip of toothpaste is there only to represent the act of toothbrushing.\u201d<\/p>\n

Requests for comment from Colgate and its legal team were not immediately answered.<\/p>\n

Plaintiffs\u2019 lawyer Michael Connett said courts have been open to deceptive labelling suits.<\/p>\n

\u201cThese rulings will hopefully send a wake-up call to manufacturers to \u2060stop promoting unsafe use of fluoride products,\u201d he noted.<\/p>\n

Last September, Colgate agreed to alter packaging for its Colgate, Tom\u2019s of Maine, and hello toothpaste brands following a probe<\/a> by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton.<\/p>\n

Paxton had deemed the brand\u2019s fluoride advertising \u201cmisleading\u201d. After an agreement with the attorney general, the company agreed to depict \u201csafe, age-appropriate amounts\u201d of toothpaste on its packaging and ads for children under six years old.<\/p>\n

Procter & Gamble (P&G) reached a similar agreement<\/a> with Paxton earlier this year. Under the terms,\u00a0the company agreed to update its Crest children\u2019s toothpaste marketing and packaging to clearly show the recommended amount of toothpaste for young users.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

\n