Avent pacifier class action alleges Philips misleads consumers on orthodontic benefits

Philips pacifier class action overview:

• Who: A New York consumer filed a class action lawsuit against Philips North America LLC and Philips Holding USA Inc.
• Why: The plaintiff claims Philips falsely advertises its Avent Ultra Air and Ultra Soft pacifiers as orthodontic.
• Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal court.

A new class action lawsuit claims Philips falsely advertises its Avent Ultra Air and Ultra Soft pacifiers as ‘orthodontic’.

Plaintiff Kaitlin Deforest’s class action lawsuit alleges Philips falsely claims the pacifiers promote healthy oral development or improve oral outcomes for children.

“The reasonable consumer understands ‘orthodontic’ to mean that the pacifiers promote oral development,” the Philips class action states.

Deforest wants to represent a New York class and a multi-state consumer protection class of anyone who purchased a Philips Avent Ultra Air or Ultra Soft pacifier within the applicable limitation period.

Pacifiers can cause harm to children, plaintiff says

Deforest argues that no pacifier is capable of promoting oral development and that prolonged pacifier use can cause significant harm to children by interfering with the proper development of teeth and orofacial structures.

“Children who use pacifiers to continue non-nutritive sucking habits have an increased risk of dental malocclusions — deviations from the ideal occlusion (the relation between the upper jaw and teeth and lower jaw and teeth) — of primary teeth,” the Philips class action explains.

Deforest argues Philips falsely advertises its Avent Ultra Air and Ultra Soft pacifiers as orthodontic to induce consumers to pay a premium price for them.

“Defendants’ Orthodontic Pacifiers cannot, and do not, support healthy oral and orofacial development of children,” the Philips class action states.

Deforest claims Philips is guilty of unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and breach of express and implied warranty and of violating New York’s Deceptive Practices Act and state consumer protection statutes. She demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of actual and statutory damages for herself and all class members.

Meanwhile, a California federal judge has partially dismissed a separate class action lawsuit against Philips which accuses the company of labeling its Avent baby bottles and sippy cups as “BPA free” without disclosing the potential risk of microplastics leaching.

Have you ever purchased a Philips pacifier? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by James C. Shah, Laurie Rubinow and Anna K. D’Agostino of Miller Shah LLP, Melissa S. Weiner and Ryan T. Gott of Pearson Warshaw LLP and Edwin J. Kilpela Jr. and James M. Lamarca of Wade Kilpela Slade LLP.

The Philips pacifier class action lawsuit is Deforest v. Philips North America LLC, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02852, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Over 1 million eggs recalled over Salmonella concerns
• Dr. Bronner’s class action lawsuit claims toothpaste contains neurotoxic heavy metals 
• Dermalogica class action claims cosmetics falsely labeled ‘Made in USA’
• EoS Fitness class action alleges gym membership tiers are a ‘cash grab’