Judge Dismisses Philips Sonicare Class Action Lawsuit

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.

On Oct. 24, a Washington federal judge dismissed the only standing claims in a Philips Sonicare class action lawsuit, a case that alleged Philips Oral Healthcare Inc. makes and sells a defective electric toothbrush. The judge found that because the plaintiff could not prove she had suffered loss because of the allegedly defective electric toothbrush, the claims brought against Philips under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act were not sufficiently pleaded to stand in federal court.

Lead plaintiff Amy Coe filed this Philips Sonicare class action lawsuit alleging the company purposefully misled consumers to believe the Sonicare electric toothbrushes would last longer than they did in reality. However, Chief U.S. District Judge Marsha J. Pechman found that Coe could not prove that she relied on Philips’ Sonicare advertisements to determine the products expected lifespan as these advertisements allegedly specifically related to the brush’s effectiveness.

Judge Pechman also found that Coe could not demonstrate proof that Philips communicated to consumers via advertisement and marketing that the Sonicare electric brushes would last five years, though Coe claimed that this was the company’s internal life expectancy for the electric toothbrush product.

Under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), Coe alleged that she did not invoke the Philips Sonicare electric toothbrush’s two-year warranty because she believed that such an action would have been futile. Judge Pechman addressed Coe’s testimony on the alleged futility of the warranty claim when issuing summary judgment on the Philips Sonicare class action lawsuit, stating there is no evidence “whatsoever that Plaintiff Coe believed repair or replacement would be futile when she decided not to invoke the warranty. Instead, when asked why she chose not to invoke the warranty, she testified that it is not her practice to call companies and complain about defective products, and that she ‘figured [she] would just replace’ the defective brush.”

Coe further claimed she believed that her first allegedly defective Sonicare electric toothbrush was a “lemon” toothbrush and that she proceeded to buy the second Sonicare toothbrush assuming it was not an inherent product design defect. However, because of Coe’s decision to not invoke the Sonicare two-year warranty and without any evidence to prove the futility of invoking said warranty, Coe could not support the claims brought against Philips under the CFA. Thus, in finding the insufficiency of this CFA claim, Judge Pechman has dismissed the Philips Sonicare class action lawsuit altogether.

This decision follows Judge Pechamn’s early October ruling to deny Class certification to the Sonicare class action lawsuit. The nationwide Class was denied because the judge found that several states’ consumer protection laws applied to the Sonicare class action lawsuit and that these state consumer laws often conflicted with one another, making the certification of a nationwide Class difficult if not impossible.

During this same ruling, Judge Pechman also threw out several claims from other named plaintiffs in the Sonicare class action lawsuit, leaving only Coe’s CFA claim standing. With this final dismissal of Coe’s claim last week, the Philips Sonicare defective toothbrush class action lawsuit is officially out of litigation.

Coe is represented by Robert I. Lax and Cliff Cantor of Lax LLP and Lori G. Feldman of Milberg LLP.

The Philips Sonicare Class Action Lawsuit is Coe, et al. 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.