Judge Trims Arm & Hammer Deodorant Class Action Lawsuit

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.

A New Jersey federal judge trimmed some claims from a class action lawsuit alleging that Arm & Hammer deodorant is falsely advertised as “natural,” but ruled that the manufacturer cannot avoid class consumer deception claims related to the inclusion of a synthetic additive on the product label.

U.S. District Judge Michael A. Shipp found that two plaintiffs could bring their Arm & Hammer deodorant class action lawsuit claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act for alleged misrepresentations on the deodorant label. However, he dismissed claims based on the company’s advertising of the product.

Arm & Hammer Essentials Natural Deodorant is manufactured by Church & Dwight Co. Inc. The plaintiffs argue that the company engaged in a false and misleading marketing strategy when it touted the deodorant as “natural” even though it contains triclosan, a synthetic antibacterial agent that has been linked to antibiotic resistance and other health concerns.

Consumer safety advocates are concerned about the safety of triclosan, which they say has been shown to disrupt hormones and encourage the growth of “superbugs” or drug-resistant bacteria. While the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) has not determined that triclosan is harmful to humans, the agency has been researching the substance’s effect on human health since 2010. While the FDA’s findings on triclosan’s health risks were scheduled for release in 2012, the release has been delayed. Because of the growing concerns about triclosan, Procter & Gamble Co. and Johnson & Johnson have announced their plan to remove triclosan from all of their products within the next two years.

Church & Dwight admitted that triclosan is not a natural ingredient, but argues that a reasonable consumer would not conclude that the Arm & Hammer Essentials product line doesn’t contain any synthetic ingredients. According to Church & Dwight, the label clearly states that the deodorant contains synthetic ingredients that serve nondeodorizing functions. The company argued that its product label only claims that it is free of aluminum and parabens.

Church & Dwight had submitted a motion to dismiss the Arm & Hammer deodorant class action lawsuit, but Judge Shipp found that the allegations were sufficient to survive dismissal. However, the judge did trim NJCFA claims based on the company’s advertising of the Arm & Hammer Essentials product line, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to meet the heightened pleading standard for fraud claims. The plaintiffs will have the opportunity to file an amended complaint addressing the fraud claims.

Judge Shipp denied Church & Dwight’s request to strike allegations about the dangers of triclosan from the class action lawsuit, finding that the ingredient’s traits are not relevant to the consumer deception claims.

The plaintiffs are represented by James C. Shah and Natalie Finkelman Bennett of Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah LLP.

The Arm & Hammer Deodorant Class Action Lawsuit is Terwin, et al. v. Church & Dwight Inc., Case No. 3:12-cv-01475, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

UPDATE: Instructions on how to file a claim for the Arm & Hammer Essentials deodorant class action lawsuit are now available! Click here or visit www.ChurchandDwightSettlement.com for details.

UPDATE 2: On Feb. 6, 2016, Top Class Actions readers started receiving Arm & Hammer deodorant settlement checks worth as much as $11.46. If you filed a claim, keep checking your mailbox because you may soon be receiving your payout!