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.
Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Subaru vehicle data collection class action lawsuit investigation
May 17, 2024 | Legal News
159 thoughts onNUK ‘Orthodontic’ Pacifiers Harmful For Toddlers, Class Action Says
Add me
Add me please
My Granddaughter is 3 & still uses NUK Pacifiers. We’ve bought alot of these.. cause she doesn’t like the others.
I kept asking why her teeth are getting so gapped in front… p lo ease add me
add me – I purchased them for baby shower gifts
Yes I’ve purchased please add me
Add
Please add me to this lawsuit.
I purchased plenty of them they were the only one my daughter liked and she had to have teeth extractions for 5 teeth at the age of 3 and now at the age of 4 her teeth are loose and getting ready to come out already
Add me
My is now and is requiring speech therapy and is expected to need dental intervention due to these binkys
Please add me
My daughter was diagnosed with “reverse swallow” and other dental and swallowing related issues after several years of using (mainly Nuk) but including some other brands. She continues now as a teenager to have slight speech impediments (lisp) and occasional choking issues.
My daughter was diagnosed with reverse swallow and weak jaw muscles many years ago. She only used NUK pacifiers and was not happy unless she had one in her mouth. She lisps sometimes and now suffers from TMJ. Add my name