Colgate Class Action Says Optic White Toothpaste is Falsely Advertised

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 class action lawsuit claims Colgate Optic White toothpaste is falsely advertised as being able to penetrate below the tooth’s surface to remove deeper stains.

Plaintiff Melissa Vigil is suing defendant Colgate-Palmolive Inc., over allegations that Colgate Optic White can do no more than remove surface stains and has no effect on deeper intrinsic stains.

According to her Colgate Optic White class action lawsuit, the advertising for this toothpaste promises that it “Deeply Whitens” and “Goes Beyond Surface Stain Removal To Deeply Whiten.”

Colgate allegedly represents that “Optic White toothpaste is clinically proven to whiten teeth with peroxide. It goes beyond surface stains unlike ordinary toothpastes.” Vigil also quotes a television commercial that claims “Colgate Optic White can penetrate to work below the tooth’s surface.”

Vigil claims Colgate Optic White can’t possibly provide the promised below-the-surface whitening. She claims the toothpaste works by abrading the surface of the tooth, reaching only surface stains like those left by wine, coffee or tobacco.

The peroxide in the toothpaste does not function as a whitening agent on intrinsic tooth stains, Vigil claims. She says dentists agree that during brushing, peroxide-based toothpastes are not in contact with the tooth long enough. Much of the peroxide is dispersed elsewhere in the mouth, and the amount of peroxide is also too small, she says.

She quotes representatives from the Academy of General Dentistry, who say the term “whitening” can be misleading when applied to a toothpaste. Getting bleach deep within a tooth can be done using trays and strips that hold the whitening agent against the tooth, the sources say. Toothpastes, on the other hand, “get rinsed away before they do anything.”

Vigil says she and the proposed Class Members purchased Colgate Optic White toothpaste in reliance on those allegedly false representations. They later realized they didn’t get what they paid for when the product failed to perform as promised.

As a result, Vigil says, they have all suffered an ascertainable economic loss. Vigil says she would not have purchased Colgate Optic White if the product’s advertising had not promised it would deeply whiten her teeth.

Vigil’s claims come on the heels of at least two other Colgate Optic White class action lawsuits, one filed in New York and the other in California. Plaintiffs in those cases noted the advertising at issue was under investigation by the FTC. Colgate’s attempt to put the litigation on hold pending that investigation was unsuccessful.

Vigil is proposing a plaintiff Class that would encompass “[a]ll persons in California who, within the relevant statute of limitations period, purchased Colgate Optic White toothpaste.”

She is asking the court for an award of damages, restitution and disgorgement, plus court costs, attorneys’ fees, and expert witness fees.

The plaintiff is represented by Jeffrey R. Krinsk, David J. Harris Jr., A. Trent Ruark and Trenton R. Kashima of Finkelstein & Krinsk LLP.

The Colgate Optic White False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit is Melissa L. Vigil v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Case No. 4:17-cv-00929, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.