Speed Stick Allegedly Stains Shirts, Class Action Lawsuits Claim

Two class action lawsuits allege Speed Stick-branded antiperspirant not only fails on its promise to prevent yellow stains but actually causes them.

The lead plaintiffs in two different class action lawsuits — Michael Muller and Melanie Heidger, both from St. Louis County, Missouri — allege both versions of Speed Stick’s “Stainguard” products do “absolutely nothing” when it comes to mitigating sweat stains on clothes. 

They say the makers of the Speed Stick antiperspirants are fraudulently profiting from the claims and allege the practice is illegal under Missouri laws. 

Speed Stick sells two lines under its Stainguard line, one ostensibly for men, the other called Lady Speed Stick. 

These antiperspirants promise odor and wetness protection and claim to be products that do not leave stains, according to both class action lawsuits.

The plaintiffs both say shoppers expect Speed Stick’s Stainguard labeling to mean the product provides some kind of protection. 

Instead, an active ingredient in the Speed Stick Stainguard antiperspirants only cause the yellow stain problem to get worse, the plaintiffs say.

Muller says it is a “scientific fact” that “‘white marks’ and ‘yellow stains'” are caused, at least in part, by the primary active ingredient in Speed Stick Stainguard products, aluminum zirconium tetrachlorohydrex gly.

 Aluminum zirconium tetrachlorohydrex gly, both Muller and Heidger claim, has been well known by scientists to cause these types of stains. The metal, when mixed with sweat, produces the yellow color, they add. 

The class action lawsuits further claim the only difference between Speed Stick Stainguard products and others the company offers is simply a diluted amount of this aluminum ingredient. 

Muller says Speed Stick’s Stainguard antiperspirants contain 10% aluminum zirconium tetrachlorohydrex gly. The non-Stain Guard products have 16% of the metal, according to the complaint. 

“If anything, dilution of the active ingredient simply renders the Product less effective than its ‘normal’ counterpart,” Muller said. 

Speed Stick faced similar allegations in a class action lawsuit filed in 2019, with the plaintiffs making similar dilution claims. A judge eventually dismissed the case in September 2020. 

Both class action lawsuits are seeking to represent Class Members from across the country but are also seeking to form a separate Class of plaintiffs from Missouri.

The two lead plaintiffs say their class action lawsuits could involve tens of thousands of consumers who’ve purchased Speed Stick Stainguard antiperspirants. 

Muller and Heidger allege Speed Stick violates Missouri’s Merchandising Practices Act prohibiting misleading, false and deceptive marketing. Formally, both class action lawsuits accuse the makers of Speed Stick of violating that act and of breach of warranty and unjust enrichment.

Do you buy Speed Stick antiperspirant? Have you had issues with stains? Let us know what you think of the class action lawsuit in the comments below. 

Counsel representing plaintiffs in both class action lawsuits is Daniel Harvath of Harvath Law Group LLC. 

The Speed Stick Class Action Lawsuits are Heidger, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00035, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division; and Muller, et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00036, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Degree, Axe, Dove Deodorants Contain Too Much Empty Space, Says Class Action
• Axe ‘Anti Marks’ Antiperspirant Leaves White Marks, Class Action Says
• NY Security Guard Says St. Michael’s Church Priest Sexually Assaulted Her
• Is Roundup Harmful to Humans?