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.
Two parents have filed a class action lawsuit against Newell Brands Inc. and NUK USA LLC, saying that the companies’ “orthodontic” pacifiers are harmful to toddlers, contrary to their advertisements.
The orthodontic pacifier class action lawsuit was filed by Shelly Benson and Lisa Caparellil who claim they each purchased at least one of the “orthodontic pacifiers” for their children.
Allegedly, they viewed advertisements showing that the NUK orthodontic pacifiers were intended for children over the age of 24 months.
The NUK pacifier class action states that the two customers purchased the pacifiers specifically because of the advertisement claiming that the product was appropriate for toddlers.
The plaintiffs say that they and many other customers were financially injured by the companies’ misrepresentations because had they known that the pacifiers did not work as advertised and could do damage to children’s oral development, they would not have purchased them.
The Newell pacifier class action lawsuit claims that the advertisements around the pacifiers are misleading because prolonged pacifier use by children over the age of 24 months can cause various oral and dental problems.
The orthodontic pacifiers are sold under the NUK brand, and come in a number of different versions. They are sold at multiple retailers including Target, Walgreens, CVS, Walmart, buybuyBaby, and Safeway, as well as online through these retailers.
The following pacifiers are included in this class action lawsuit:
- NUK® Orthodontic Pacifiers
- NUK® Space™ Orthodontic Pacifiers
- NUK® Latex Orthodontic Pacifiers
- NUK® Sports Orthodontic Pacifiers
- NUK® Confetti Orthodontic Pacifiers
- NUK® Fashion Orthodontic Pacifiers
- NUK® Sensitive™ Orthodontic Pacifiers
- NUK® Juicy Orthodontic Pacifiers
The customers say Newell and NUK should have been aware that pacifier use by older children could cause injury. They claim that the companies put children at risk in the interest of maximizing their profits.
The NUK pacifier class action lawsuit says not only do the companies claim that the pacifiers are safe for use by older children, but actually improves their dental and oral development.
The NUK class action lawsuit cites numerous statements allegedly made by the companies, including claims that “NUK’s asymmetrical nipple naturally fits baby’s palate and is now improved to allow for more room for a natural sucking motion, reduce pressure on teeth and jaw, and helps prevent teeth misalignment.”
Another such statement that appears on the website, advertises that the orthodontic pacifier “promotes the natural development of jaw and teeth.”
The NUK orthodontic pacifier class action says that “decades of research studies” have shown that prolonged habits like using a pacifier is related to a number of negative affects on oral myofunctional structures — bite, jaw alignment, teeth position, musculature, and others.
The NUK class action lawsuit points to this research to state that there is no scientific backing for the claims that pacifier use can help prevent such problems, as the companies allegedly claim. Instead, the customers say there is evidence to show that pacifier use does the opposite — actively harming such development.
Have you purchased a NUK pacifier because of advertised benefits? Let us know in the comments below.
The customers are represented by Katrina Carroll, R. Bruce Carlson, Edward J. Kilpela and Bryan A. Fox of Carlson Lynch LLP, Daniel L. Warshaw, Melissa S. Weiner and Joseph C. Bourne of Pearson Simon & Warshaw LLP and Patrick W. Michenfelder of Throndset Michenfelder Law Office.
The NUK Orthodontic Pacifier False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Shelly Benson, et al. v. Newell Brands Inc., et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-06836, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.
159 thoughts onNUK ‘Orthodontic’ Pacifiers Harmful For Toddlers, Class Action Says
How do you find out if you qualify for this lawsuit? I’d like to be added!
How does one go about filing for this. I have a major issue.
I used these from 6 months to the 24+ months recommendation please add me
Add me as well
I left a reply in march what is going on
My son has severe damage overbite etc from these products. Please add me to this class action. What do i need to do? He needs braces and insurance won’t cover cuz they say its not medically necessary. He has autism and has to go to speech classes. They say if his bottom teeth touched the roof of his mouth than it would be covered.
My son used these and also is autistic with a speech delay and “moon mouth”
I used Nuk for both my kids add me
This class action is not saying all babies that use this brand, or any pacifier will have teeth issues. It is specifically talking about the ones labeled for 24+months. Pacifiers have been proven to not only comfort an infant but it is now believed that they can also help guard against SIDS. They have made huge strides in pacifiers and nipples. Please consider rereading the class action.
I used NUK products over 20 years please add me to the case
Our grandson use up till he was 3 years old
Still finding them we had to have 50 Nuks
Need our four sons never needed them
But in today’s world
The new mommy’s are telling me how to Sooth that a child
He was biting them once he had bitten it put a hole in it and the final straw was when he was not getting his way and bite the nipple off of it
And for three days he was freaking out needing back wanting his nuk