Philips Sonicare Toothbrush Class Action Lawsuit Survives Dismissal Bid

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.

A federal judge on Monday trimmed claims from a class action lawsuit over allegedly defective Philips Sonicare toothbrushes, ruling that plaintiffs cannot pursue breach of warranty claims but can still pursue claims that Philips Oral Healthcare Inc. violated Washington, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York consumer laws.

Plaintiffs in the Philips Sonicare class action lawsuit include several consumers who purchased various models of Philips Sonicare electric toothbrushes that allegedly promised 31,000 “brushstrokes” per minute and “provide superior cleaning as compared to a manual toothbrush.” Plaintiffs claimed that due to a defect in the metal shaft, the toothbrushes never lived up to their promises. The plaintiffs also alleged that Philips knew of the defect because Sonicare purchasers in the United Kingdom were told a loose handle required the replacement of the toothbrush, and then Philips sent UK purchasers a new brush.

Sonicare purchasers in the United States were not told to seek a replacement if the speed of the brush stroked slowed, but that they should replace the toothbrush heads. The plaintiffs argue that they paid additional money for the Sonicare toothbrushes in reliance on those promises, and  that Philips violated consumer laws and breached their warranties. The plaintiffs included all Philips Sonicare toothbrush models in their class action lawsuit, not only the models the lead plaintiffs purchased.

Philips sought to dismiss the class action lawsuit entirely, arguing the plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege an injury, they had no standing to sue, and Philips had not breached its warranty because the plaintiffs had not attempted to make any claims under the warranty.

Washington federal Judge Marsha J. Pechman agreed that the plaintiffs could demonstrate that Sonicare toothbrushes were defective and that they had suffered an injury by overpaying for the brushes, but she disagreed that Philips had violated the terms of its two-year warranty on the toothbrushes.

“Plaintiffs allege they paid too much for a defective product,” Judge Pechman said in her Feb. 24 order, “[w]ithout question, the relief sought – compensation for the overpayment – remedies the alleged injury.”

The judge further noted that “Philips also takes issue with Plaintiffs’ standing to pursue claims for toothbrushes they did not purchase,” but that “[w]hile there is no controlling authority, the majority of federal courts that have addressed the issue hold a plaintiff may have standing to assert claims for unnamed class members based on products he or she did not purchase so long as the products and alleged misrepresentations are substantially similar.” And, in this case, “[p]laintiffs allege all Sonicare Toothbrushes have the same shaft defect, which ultimately slows the speed of the brush heads.”

The judge did trim the breach of warranty claims, both implied and express.

“Philips argues Plaintiffs lack contractual privity because they did not purchase their toothbrushes directly from Phillips” noted the judge, and further “Plaintiffs do not argue they have contractual privity with Philips. Instead, they claim New Jersey, Connecticut, and New York have abandoned the requirement of privity. This is not true.”

With respect to the plaintiffs claims that Philips violated its express warranty, including a two-year product guaranty and statements made on the Sonicare packaging, the judge pointed out that several plaintiffs never exercised their rights under the warranty and that “[a] manufacturer is ‘not liable for breach of express warranty merely because a product manifests recurring failures during the warranty period. Rather, the question is whether [a plaintiff] sought repairs, refunds, or replacements, and, if so, whether [the manufacturer] responded appropriately under the warranty.'” The judge noted the breach of warranty claim also failed for the plaintiffs who did exercise their warranty agreement, because “Philips complied with the terms of the warranty by replacing [the plaintiff’s] toothbrush.”

With respect to the packaging, the judge pointed out “the product packaging actually states, ‘Speed” Up to 31,000 brush strokes per minute'” [emphasis in original], and that the plaintiffs reliance based on statements made on the packaging was misplaced and too broad.

The judge upheld the plaintiffs’ fraud based claims pointing out that “[i]n the United Kingdom, Philips specifically informs consumers that a loose metal shaft is indicative of a defect and the toothbrush should be returned for a replacement” and that the plaintiffs overpaid for their toothbrushes and purchased new toothbrush heads because Philips failed to disclose the defect.

The plaintiffs are represented by Cliff Cantor and Robert I. Lax of Lax LLP, William J. Pinilis of Pinilis Halpern, LLP, and Sanford P. Dumain, Andrei Rado and Jessica J. Sleater of Milberg LLP.

The Philips Sonicare Toothbrush Class Action Lawsuit is Coe v. Philips Oral Healthcare Inc., et al., Case No. 2:13-cv-00518 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

UPDATE: The Philips Sonicare toothbrush class action lawsuit was dismissed on Oct. 24, 2014.