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.
Claims of breach of warranty, breach of implied covenant of good faith, and an injunction were dismissed by a federal judge in a Speed Stick deodorant class action lawsuit alleging false advertising of the product.
Lead plaintiffs Drew Huskey and Jamie Richard claimed that Speed Stick Stainguard Antiperspirant did not work as advertised by Colgate-Palmolive Co in their class action lawsuit filed in 2019. The plaintiffs say that the product did not protect against yellow stains and white marks as touted by the product’s packaging and other ads.
Colgate-Palmolive argued that the Speed Stick deodorant class action should be dismissed and U.S. District Court Judge John A. Ross agreed on several claims. However, the judge refused to dismiss the plaintiffs’ false advertising and unjust enrichment claims.
The Speed Stick deodorant class action lawsuit alleged that Colgate-Palmolive “stainguard” products did not live up to the hype due a particular ingredient, aluminum zirconium tetrachlorohydrex gly. They claimed they and other consumers were left with stained and marked clothing despite paying more for the product than other deodorants. Further, they claimed that stainguard products are simply diluted versions of regular Speed Stick antiperspirant.
Colgate argued for dismissal of the entire complaint. For the class action lawsuit’s plea for injunctive relief, Judge Ross agreed with the defendant pointing out that the plaintiffs had not alleged that they would continue to purchase the deceptively advertised product.
“Plaintiffs lack standing to seek injunctive relief because the complaints contain no allegations that Plaintiffs intend to continue purchasing the Stainguard Products or purchase them in the future,” states the order. “As a result, they have not alleged any ‘threat of ongoing or future harm.’”
Judge Ross also concluded that the plaintiffs failed to properly notify Colgate-Palmolive of the alleged breach of warranty regarding the Speed Stick deodorant false advertising claims prior to filing class action lawsuit as required under Missouri law.
“Because the Court does not find that the original complaint constituted pre-suit notice and there are no other allegations of pre-litigation notice in Plaintiffs’ complaints, the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs breach of warranty claims,” concluded the order.
Similarly, Judge Ross dismissed the class action lawsuit’s claim that Colgate violated its implied contract. This time, the judge noted that the plaintiffs had failed to address Colgate’s argument that their claims for breach of implied contract should be dismissed, thus “abandoning” the claim.
Judge Ross disagreed with Colgate’s arguments to dismiss class action claims for false advertising and unjust enrichment, finding it too early in the litigation to decide one way or the other.
“Taking Plaintiffs’ allegations as true, the Court finds it plausible that a reasonable consumer might rely on Colgate’s representation that the Stainguard products ‘fights stains’ to mean that they would prevent yellow stains and white marks from occurring,” reasons the order.
Judge Ross used similar reasoning to retain the Speed Stick deodorant class action lawsuit’s unjust enrichment claims, noting that the plaintiffs’ argument that Colgate was benefited by money paid by consumers for the allegedly deceptively advertised product was sufficient.
Judge Ross also declined to dismiss the plaintiffs’ class action allegations; however, he noted “serious doubts” about whether the plaintiffs would be able to meet certain standards required of them to represent a nationwide Class of consumers. The judge ultimately decided not to dismiss the class action allegations “out of caution.”
The pair of plaintiffs will have the opportunity to amend their complaint regarding the dismissed claims.
Have you purchased Speed Stick deodorant advertised as fighting yellow stains and white marks? What was your experience? Tell us in the comments below.
The lead plaintiffs and the proposed Class are represented by David F. Harvath of Harvath Law Group LLC.
The Speed Stick Deodorant Stainguard Class Action Lawsuit is Huskey, et al. 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 About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:
Fresh Market Nutrition Label Class Action Lawsuit Challenges Bakery Goods Labeling
How Does AB5 Affect Truck Drivers?
Diversity Visa Lottery Winners Don’t Have to Quarantine Out of Country, Judge Says
55 thoughts onSpeed Stick Deodorant Class Action Lawsuit Sees Some Claims Tossed
I purchased this for my friend. He stated it left stains on his shirts.
Someone should start a lawsuit against Mitchum, a Revlon company. I have bought their unscented roll on antiperspirant for years but the last one I bought definitely has a strong smell to it. In fact, although the front label says “unscented”, the ingredients list “parfum.” I contacted them and they sent me a letter and a $5 coupon. The letter explained the product was recently reformulated and a “masking agent” that supposedly is not noticeable was added to neutralize some other smell.
Well, the product is no longer unscented and I don’t care for the smell.
I don’t know what I will use the $5 coupon for as that was the only product of theirs that I purchased.
Purchased tons of Speed Stick for my husband.Add me please.