Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.
UPDATE 1: A class action settlement has been reached in this case. See how to file a claim for the Philips Sonicare AirFloss Class Action Settlement.
UPDATE 2: Viewers of Top Class Actions have reported that they have received their settlement checks in the mail!
A class action lawsuit accusing Philips Oral Healthcare Inc. of misleading consumers about its Sonicare AirFloss plaque remover is continuing to move forward in court, minus a few claims.
Lead Plaintiff Lilia Perkins alleges in the Sonicare AirFloss class action lawsuit, filed in June 2012, that Philips used misleading advertising that tricked consumers into believing that using the AirFloss would be the same as using traditional dental floss.
Perkins sued Philips for breach of warranty, unfair competition, false advertising and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Philips attempted to dismiss the Sonicare AirFloss class action lawsuit by arguing that Perkins’ unfair competition claims were based on “nonactionable puffery” – an argument that U.S. District Judge Marilyn L. Huff rejected.
Judge Huff ruled that statements on the AirFloss packaging could lead consumers to believe the product is equivalent to dental floss, including the statement that using AirFloss is “an easier way to floss.”
“[T]hese statements strongly suggest that consumers should floss more often; and a reasonable consumer could believe that they can remedy that problem by purchasing the AirFloss,” Huff said.
Huff also allowed Perkins’ unfair competition claims to stand because she sufficiently proved that she relied on AirFloss’ marketing campaign in purchasing the product. Perkins also sufficiently proved that the marketing campaign was unethical because it induced consumers to pay more than $100 for a product that is misrepresented as being just as effective as traditional floss, which is sold for less than $5.
The only claims Judge Huff did throw out were Perkins’ breach of express warranty allegations because she “fail[ed] to allege the exact terms of the warranty” that Philips violated, Huff said.
The Philips Sonicare AirFloss Class Action Lawsuit case is Lilia Perkins v. Philips Oral Health Care Inc. et al., Case No. 12-cv-01414, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. Perkins is represented by Michael Ian Rott of Hiden Rott & Oertle LLP.
All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
One thought on Philips Sonicare AirFloss Class Action Lawsuit Survives Dismissal
UPDATE 2: Viewers of Top Class Actions have reported that they have received their settlement checks in the mail!