Toothpaste Lawsuits Put Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Claims Under Scrutiny

Three new class action lawsuits are putting a familiar toothpaste ingredient under the microscope. According to the complaints filed in federal court in California, consumers say leading toothpaste brands promoted gum-health and anti-gingivitis benefits while failing to disclose that the products contain sodium lauryl sulfate, a detergent-based ingredient the plaintiffs describe as a gum irritant.

The cases were brought against The Procter & Gamble Co. over Crest, Haleon US Inc. over Sensodyne and Parodontax, and Colgate-Palmolive Co. over Colgate Total. The plaintiffs allege that the companies marketed these products as capable of fighting gingivitis, reducing gum inflammation, or strengthening gum health, while the presence of sodium lauryl sulfate made those claims misleading in context.

The lawsuits matter because they are not framed as a dispute over whether toothpaste works in a general sense. Instead, the plaintiffs contend that consumers paid a premium for products that were advertised as gum-friendly, but were not told about an ingredient that allegedly undermines the very benefits being promoted. That is the type of claim that often draws attention in consumer protection litigation, especially when marketing language and ingredient disclosures appear to point in different directions.

What The Plaintiffs Allege

In the Crest case, the plaintiffs allege that the product caused pain, discomfort, and sensitivity in the mouth and gums after regular use. They say the marketing for Crest Pro-Health Gum Detoxify Plus suggested the product would help improve gum health, but the sodium lauryl sulfate content allegedly made those claims misleading because of the ingredient’s irritation-related effects.

The Haleon case makes similar allegations about Sensodyne and Parodontax. The plaintiffs say they relied on claims that the products reduce swollen, bleeding gums and reverse early gum disease, but were not told the products contain sodium lauryl sulfate. In the Colgate case, the plaintiffs claim they relied on Colgate Total’s gum-health messaging and would not have bought the product, or would have paid less, had they known about the ingredient.

All three lawsuits seek to represent California consumers who purchased the products for personal use within the past four years. The complaints assert claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and breach of warranty, and each group has demanded a jury trial.

Why Sodium Lauryl Sulfate Is Central

Sodium lauryl sulfate, often abbreviated as SLS, is widely used as a foaming and cleansing agent in personal care products. The plaintiffs’ theory is not simply that the ingredient exists, but that its alleged irritant properties conflict with the promise that the products support gum health, reverse gingivitis, or protect the mouth from inflammation.

That point is important because consumer class actions often turn on whether a reasonable buyer would view the omission as material. If a product is marketed around oral wellness and gum repair, plaintiffs may argue that a consumer would want to know whether a detergent ingredient is present and whether it could contribute to irritation or discomfort. The defense will likely respond that the ingredient is common, permitted, and not incompatible with ordinary toothpaste use.

The public discussion around SLS is not new. Medical literature has addressed oral irritation and mouth ulcer concerns in connection with toothpaste containing SLS, although the actual legal significance of that research will depend on what the plaintiffs can prove about labeling, marketing, causation, and consumer reliance in these specific cases.

The Legal Theories

The legal backbone of these cases is familiar to consumer litigation. The plaintiffs are invoking California statutes aimed at unfair competition, false advertising, and deceptive consumer practices, along with warranty-based claims. That structure suggests the cases are aimed less at proving a single injury event and more at showing a broader marketing pattern that allegedly affected thousands of purchases.

In practical terms, these claims usually ask a court to decide whether the product labeling or advertising would mislead a reasonable consumer, whether the omission of ingredient-related risks was material, and whether the alleged misrepresentation caused buyers to spend money they otherwise would not have spent. If the cases survive early motions, the litigation could turn heavily on expert testimony, label review, consumer expectations, and the scientific evidence concerning SLS and oral tissue irritation.

There is also a common distinction between the plaintiffs who allege physical irritation and those who allege only economic injury. In the Top Class Actions summary, some plaintiffs say they experienced pain and sensitivity, while others say they would have paid less or bought something else had they known the products contained SLS. That split can matter because class action cases often include both personal injury style allegations and premium-price or price-premium theories.

What The Cases Could Mean

These filings do not mean a court has found the toothpaste companies liable. They mean the companies now have to defend the gap between their marketing claims and their ingredient disclosures, and that defense can be costly even before a case reaches discovery or trial.

For consumers, the practical takeaway is straightforward: marketing language about gum health is worth reading together with the ingredient panel, not instead of it. If a product promises to fight gingivitis or support gum repair, a plaintiff may argue that the absence of a clear warning about a potentially irritating ingredient is legally significant. Whether a judge agrees will depend on the details of the advertisements, package claims, and the evidence developed in the case.

For manufacturers, these lawsuits are another reminder that consumer-facing health claims should be matched carefully with ingredient transparency. In the world of toothpaste litigation, plaintiffs do not need to prove that a product is universally unsafe. They often need to show that the product was marketed in a way that could reasonably mislead buyers about what they were getting and why it mattered.

Filing Details And Complaints

The three complaints were filed on July 2, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The Crest case is Oliver, et al. v. The Procter & Gamble Co., Case No. 3:26-cv-03859-JO-BJW. The Sensodyne and Parodontax case is Garland, et al. v. Haleon US Inc., Case No. 3:26-cv-03855-GPC-JAC. The Colgate case is Fry, et al. v. The Colgate-Palmolive Company, Case No. 3:26-cv-03858-RBM-AHG.

Here are links to the complaints currently available through public sources:

• Crest complaint, Oliver et al. v. The Procter & Gamble Co.: Link

• Haleon complaint, Garland et al. v. Haleon US Inc.: Link

• Colgate complaint, Fry et al. v. The Colgate-Palmolive Company: Link

  
  

At this stage, the cases are allegations, not findings. Still, they highlight a recurring issue in consumer product litigation: when a company markets a product around health protection, ingredient disclosures become part of the message a buyer receives, whether the label says so explicitly or not.

For readers, the lesson is simple. Claims about gum health, whitening, sensitivity relief, or oral wellness should be read alongside the fine print and the ingredient list. For companies, the lesson is equally simple: if a formulation includes an ingredient that may cut against the headline benefit, that tension should be addressed before the product reaches consumers and before a lawsuit forces the issue into federal court.

---

Howard Law is a business, regulatory and M&A law firm in the greater Charlotte, North Carolina area, with additional services in M&A advisory and business brokerage. Howard Law is a law firm based in the greater Charlotte, North Carolina area focused on business law, corporate law, regulatory law, mergers & acquisitions, M&A advisor and business brokerage. Handling all business matters from incorporation to acquisition as well as a comprehensive understanding in assisting through mergers and acquisition.

The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements. The information on this website is for general and informational purposes only and should not be interpreted to indicate a certain result will occur in your specific legal situation. Information on this website is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult an attorney for advice regarding your individual situation. Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send any confidential information to us until such time as an attorney-client relationship has been established.