Lady Speed Stick Doesn’t Fight Yellow Stains, Class Action Says

Colgate-Palmolive, the makers of Lady Speed Stick, have been hit with a class action lawsuit alleging its “Stainguard” deodorant is falsely advertised as being able to fight yellow stains and fight white marks.

Plaintiff Jamie Richards says some of the antiperspirants in the Lady Speed Stick line are touted as providing a “Stainguard,” or fighting the annoying, sometimes irremovable white and yellow marks on clothing.

However, the products advertised in the “Stainguard” line are simply diluted versions of the regular Lady Speed Stick but are sold at a premium and ultimately result in unsightly yellow and white residue on clothing, according to the complaint.

The Lady Speed Stick class action lawsuit states that “[t]he ‘Stain Guard’ line of products is deceptively and misleading marketed as being a product that ‘fights yellow stains’ and ‘fights white marks,’ and being ‘formulated to fight yellow stains and white residue on clothes’; yet, in reality, the ‘Stain Guard’ line of antiperspirant is nothing more than a slightly diluted version of regular ‘Lady Speed Stick’-branded antiperspirant containing essentially the same ingredients with nothing added to ‘fight’ white marks or yellow staining.”

Richards says that she and other consumers purchased the so-called Stainguard line of Lady Speed Stick antiperspirants because of these advertising claims and would not have purchased the products had they known that the claims were not true.

The Lady Speed Stick class action lawsuit alleges that the Stainguard line of products are simply diluted versions of the regular Lady Speed Stick line. The Stainguard line has the same active ingredient as the regular line, aluminium zirconium tetrachlorohydrex gly, notes the complaint.

Aluminium zirconium tetrachlorohydrex gly is the culprit when it comes to deodorant stains, contends the plaintiff. The ingredient mixes with the user’s sweat, resulting in the unsightly yellow stains that are all but impossible to get out of clothing.

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

Further, states the complaint, the Stainguard line that purports to fight white marks actually leaves white marks on all types of colors of fabric.

Richards contends that in spite of the fact that the Stainguard line of Lady Speed Stick is simply a diluted version of the regular line, Colgate sells it at a higher price.

The Lady Speed Stick class action lawsuit seeks to represent consumers in Missouri who purchased Lady Speed Stick products under the Stainguard line.

The Lady Speed Stick Stainguard class action was originally filed in state court, but was recently removed to Missouri federal court.

Have you been duped by false advertising? Tell us your story in the comment section below!

The plaintiff and proposed Class Members are represented by Daniel F. Harvath of Harvath Law Group LLC.

The Lady Speed Stick Class Action Lawsuit is Richards v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-02934-JAR, 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