Tom’s Natural Kids Toothpaste Class Action Lawsuit

A Tom’s Toothpaste class action lawsuit has been filed against Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Tom’s of Maine, Inc., alleging that their Tom’s Natural Kids Toothpaste contains unsafe levels of toxic heavy metals, specifically lead and arsenic.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by Douglas White on behalf of similarly affected consumers, accuses the manufacturers of deceptively marketing the toothpaste as safe for children while omitting critical information about contamination risks.

We are learning more about more about the presence of heavy metals in consumer products, particularly those targeted at children. Lawsuits are following because many of these companies knew or should have known about the presence of toxic metals in their products companies failed to warn consumers or work to eliminate the toxic metals.  The focus before this has been on toxic metals in baby food.  Now, parents have to worry about tooth paste contributing to brain injuries.

• Hello Toothpaste Lawsuit

Allegations Against the Defendants

According to the complaint, independent testing conducted by the consumer safety group Lead Safe Mama revealed alarming levels of lead and arsenic in Tom’s Natural Kids Toothpaste, particularly the Silly Strawberry Fluoride-Free variety. The tests allegedly showed that the toothpaste contained four times the acceptable level of arsenic and 48 times—48 times!— the recommended threshold for lead exposure.

So this is awful and it is more awful is that Tom’s Natural Kids Toothpaste is marketed as a natural and safe alternative for children.  So they are giving this product to parents of children who are trying to do everything they can to keep their children healthy.  Understandable, then, the lawsuit claims that by failing to disclose the presence of these neurotoxins, Colgate-Palmolive and Tom’s of Maine engaged in deceptive business practices, misleading parents who purchased the toothpaste under the assumption that it was safe.

Lead and arsenic exposure, particularly in young children, can have devastating and irreversible health effects. Lead is a well-documented neurotoxin that has no safe level of exposure, and even small amounts can lead to cognitive impairments, behavioral problems, learning disabilities, and long-term neurological disorders. Similarly, arsenic exposure has been linked to organ damage, developmental issues, and increased risks of cancer. The lawsuit contends that children are especially vulnerable to these toxins because of their smaller body size, developing brains, and tendency to swallow toothpaste while brushing.

The History of Concerns Over Heavy Metals in Consumer Products

The concern over toxic heavy metals in consumer products is not new. In 2021, a U.S. Congressional report exposed alarmingly high levels of lead, arsenic, mercury, and cadmium in baby food products manufactured by some of the biggest names in the industry. That report sparked a wave of lawsuits from families who alleged that prolonged exposure to heavy metals caused developmental delays, autism, and ADHD in their children. The lawsuit against Tom’s of Maine and Colgate-Palmolive mirrors a broader pattern, with plaintiffs alleging a troubling trend of major corporations hiding known health risks to children linked to their products.

The complaint alleges that Colgate-Palmolive and Tom’s of Maine continued to market their toothpaste as safe for children without disclosing its toxic content. The lawsuit states that the defendants have a legal duty to ensure that their products do not pose unnecessary risks to consumers, especially children. It further argues that by failing to disclose the presence of lead and arsenic, they misled consumers into purchasing a product they would have otherwise avoided.

The Plaintiff’s Claims and Legal Basis

The plaintiffclaims that he purchased Tom’s Natural Kids Toothpaste multiple times for his child, relying on the brand’s reputation for natural and safe ingredients. The lawsuit alleges that if the presence of lead and arsenic had been disclosed, neither White nor other reasonable consumers would have purchased the product. The claims include violations of New York’s General Business Law (GBL) §§ 349 and 350, which prohibit deceptive and misleading business practices, as well as negligence and unjust enrichment.

Specifically, the key legal arguments in the lawsuit include:

• Deceptive Advertising & False Labeling – This toxic metal toothpaste lawsuit asserts that Colgate-Palmolive and Tom’s of Maine misrepresented their product by omitting critical safety information.
• Negligence Per Se – By allegedly selling a contaminated product that fails to meet consumer safety standards, the defendants are accused of acting negligently and violating food and drug safety regulations.
• Unjust Enrichment – The complaint argues that the defendants profited from misleading consumers into buying a product that posed serious health risks.

The plaintiff is seeking monetary damages, including:

• Compensatory damages for the cost of purchasing the product,
• Punitive damages to penalize the companies for allegedly reckless behavior, and
• Treble damages under New York consumer protection laws.

Consumer Class Action Lawsuit or Personal Injury Claim?

This lawsuit against Colgate-Palmolive and Tom’s of Maine is a consumer class action rather than a personal injury lawsuit, which is a crucial distinction in mass litigation.

Consumer Class Action

A consumer class action is a type of lawsuit where a group of consumers—referred to as the class—sues a company for deceptive business practices, false advertising, or defective products. These lawsuits typically focus on economic harm rather than physical injury. In this case, the plaintiffs are alleging that they purchased Tom’s Natural Kids Toothpaste based on false or misleading claims that the product was safe for children when, in fact, it allegedly contained toxic heavy metals like lead and arsenic. The lawsuit argues that, had consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased the toothpaste or would have paid less for it. As a result, the damages sought in a consumer class action are typically financial, aiming to reimburse affected customers for their purchases and potentially seek additional statutory or punitive damages for deceptive conduct.

Personal Injury Claims

In contrast, a personal injury lawsuit would involve individual plaintiffs filing claims based on physical harm or illness caused by the product. If a consumer alleged that using Tom’s Kids Toothpaste directly caused a specific medical condition, such as neurological damage or heavy metal poisoning, they would file an individual personal injury claim rather than join a class action. These cases require medical evidence, expert testimony, and proof of direct causation—meaning the plaintiff must show that their specific health issue was caused by exposure to the product.

Will We See Tom’s Natural Kids Toothpaste Personal Injury Lawsuits?

As of now, there are no personal injury lawsuits filed against Colgate-Palmolive or Tom’s of Maine related to the alleged heavy metal contamination in Tom’s Natural Kids Toothpaste. The current class action lawsuit is focused on consumer fraud, false advertising, and economic damages, meaning it is not seeking compensation for specific physical injuries suffered by children. Instead, it argues that consumers were misled into buying a product marketed as safe for children when, in reality, it allegedly contained lead and arsenic.

Personal injury lawsuits are an entirel different animal. The legal hurdles in a consumer class actions are higher because plaintiffs must prove a direct link between the product and a specific injury. Lead and arsenic exposure are well-documented neurotoxins. No one disputes this. But it is not enough to show that a child used the toothpaste and later developed cognitive issues.  Unlikely baby food, the level of ingestion of toothpaste is much lower.  A successful personal injury case would require scientific evidence demonstrating that the levels of heavy metals in this toothpaste were sufficient to cause measurable harm.  The guess here, and it is just a guess, is that this will be an impossible hill for plaintiffs’ lawyers to climb.

That said, personal injury lawsuits could emerge in the future, especially if deeper investigations uncover stronger scientific evidence linking the toothpaste to long-term health consequences in children. If additional testing, internal company documents, or regulatory findings reveal that Colgate-Palmolive knew about the contamination and failed to act, it could open the door for toxic exposure claims.