Axe ‘Anti Marks’ Antiperspirant Leaves White Marks, Class Action Says

A class action lawsuit claims that Axe Anti Marks Protection antiperspirant line leaves white marks on clothing, contrary to its advertisements. 

Plaintiff Dan Crepps says Unilever’s Axe brand of antiperspirant is falsely marketed as being a product that does not leave white marks on clothes. 

The Axe class action lawsuit notes that the Anti Marks Protection products come in a number of versions, including Gold Original, Signature Gold, Signature Night, 48HR Charge Up Protection, and Signature Island.

To support his claim that the Axe antiperspirant products do not actually offer protection against white marks, Crepps notes that the Anti Marks Protection formula does not differ much from the formula of the non Anti Marks Protection antiperspirants.

Allegedly, the only difference between the two products is that the Axe Anti Marks Protection product contains a slightly diluted amount of the active ingredient.

The Axe deodorant class action lawsuit says that it is well established that aluminum zirconium tetrachlorohydrex gly, the active ingredient in both products, causes white marks. This knowledge is available not only in the industry, but can be discovered by a basic testing of a product.

Based on this, the Axe antiperspirant class action lawsuit says that though the anti marks product may cause slightly fewer white marks than the non anti marks version, the product does actually cause white marks. 

Additionally, the Axe deodorant class action lawsuit states that the Axe Anti Marks Protection antiperspirants do not contain any other ingredient that could protect against white marks caused by aluminum zirconium tetrachlorohydrex gly. 

The Axe class action lawsuit goes on to say that Unilever’s claims that the product protects shirts from white marks are deceptive. According to Crepps, the misleading claims are made numerous times throughout the products’ labeling and advertising.

“Even worse, when tested by any consumer after purchasing the Product, the fact that the Product absolutely leaves white marks on clothing is readily apparent,” the Axe class action states.

Allegedly, customers have a preference for antiperspirants that do not leave white marks, and the company took advantage of this preference. The Axe antiperspirant class action states that the company intentionally played on customers’ preference for products that do not contain white marks in an effort to entice them into making a purchase.

Crepps says that he and many other customers who purchased Axe Anti Marks Protection antiperspirant were financially injured by Unilever because had they known that the product could cause white marks, they would not have purchased it or would not have paid as much for it as they did.

The plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of himself and all other similarly affected customers who purchased Axe Anti Marks products believing the misrepresentations.

Have you purchased Axe Anti Marks Protection or other Axe products? Have you noticed white marks on your clothing? Let us know in the comment section below.

The Axe class action lawsuit was removed to federal court on Oct. 8, 2019.

Crepps is represented by Daniel Harvath of Harvath Law Group LLC.

The Axe Anti Marks Antiperspirant Class Action Lawsuit is Dan Crepps v. Conopco Inc. d/b/a Unilever, Case No. 4:19-cv-02723, 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

Mother Awarded $229 Million in Childbirth Injury Case

Speed Stick Class Action Says Stainguard Doesn’t Work

How Long Does A Car Accident Settlement Take?