Speed Stick Class Action Says Stainguard Doesn’t Work

A recent class action claims that Speed Stick Stainguard Antiperspirant doesn’t work to fight stains and white marks as advertised.

Colgate’s Speed Stick line includes several deodorant and antiperspirant products with various claims and qualities.

The brand’s “stainguard” line is reportedly advertised as being able to fight yellow stains and white marks in addition to providing odor and wetness protection.

However, plaintiff R. Drew Huskey argues that the stainguard products are only a “slightly diluted version” of other Speed Stick antiperspirants.

The stainguard antiperspirants reportedly do not contain “a single addition ingredient” which allows them to fight stains or marks. The only difference between the stainguard products and other Speed Sticks is an allegedly diluted antiperspirant ingredient.

In regular Speed Stick products, aluminum zirconium tetrachlorohydrex gly is reportedly found at 16 percent. In Speed Stick Stainguard Antiperspirants, this is allegedly diluted to only 10 percent.

Huskey’s Speed Stick class action argues that stainguard products are further deceptive since their main antiperspirant is reportedly linked to the yellow stains and white marks that the products are marketed to fight.

“Thus, in reality, while perhaps doing it to a slightly lesser extent than Speed Stick’s non-‘Stain Guard’ antiperspirants, the ‘Stain Guard’ line of antiperspirants actually causes the very problems Colgate deceptively claims it ‘fights,’” the Speed Stick class action states.

Testing of the products allegedly shows that stainguard antiperspirants “readily” create white marks on clothing of all colors. This is reportedly caused by the aluminum content in the products which, when mixed with sweat, can “inevitably” cause yellow staining.

Despite the ineffective nature of Speed Stick Stainguard products, these antiperspirants are reportedly sold at the same or higher price than regular Speed Sticks.

Huskey argues that Colgate relies on deceptive advertising to convince consumers to pay more for a subpar product, an action he claims is illegal under Missouri consumer protection laws.

Huskey reportedly purchased Speed Stick Stainguard products in July 2019 after viewing advertisements for the antiperspirant on the Speed Stick website. After buying the products at a local retailer, Huskey was allegedly disappointed with the performance of the product.

In his Speed Stick class action lawsuit, Huskey seeks to represent a Class of consumers who purchased Speed Stick Stainguard Antiperspirants since July 4, 2019. He also seeks to represent a subclass of the same consumers who purchased the products in Missouri.

The Speed Stick class action was recently removed from state to federal court due to the amount in controversy.

Did you purchase Speed Stick Stainguard Antiperspirant? Share your opinions on the class action in the comment section below!

Huskey and the proposed Class are represented by David F. Harvath of Harvath Law Group LLC.

The Speed Stick Class Action Lawsuit is Huskey v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02710, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

Read More Lawsuit & Settlement News:

Degree Class Action Says DrySpray Doesn’t Reduce White Marks or Yellow Stains

Hurricane Insurance Claims Add up In Storm-Weary North Carolina

Aveeno Class Action Says Lotion Doesn’t Provide ‘Stress Relief’

IED Attacks Made Deadlier by Funding from Iran