Procter & Gamble Asks Court to Toss Charcoal Toothpaste 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.

Update:

• A New York federal judge tossed the class action lawsuit against Procter & Gamble regarding its charcoal 3D White toothpaste, ruling that the evidence submitted by Plaintiff Belinda Housey contradicted her own claims. “The document controls, and the court need not accept the allegations in the complaint as true,” wrote U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald. 
• Judge Buchwald also ruled that Housey failed to show that she was harmed by the charcoal toothpaste and wasn’t worried about the product until she “heard of the potential risks of charcoal in the media.”
• The judge further noted that P&G didn’t make any extra claims of teeth whitening pertaining to its charcoal toothpaste. Unlike Housey’s claims, the various flavors of 3D White all cost $4.99 and all carry identical labels with the exception of the specific flavor. 

Crest Charcoal Toothpaste Lawsuit Overview:

• Who: Procter & Gamble, makers of Crest toothpaste, ask for the removal of a false advertising class action lawsuit filed against it by a New York resident
• Why: The class action lawsuit alleges Crest charcoal toothpaste is harmful to tooth enamel and does not deliver on whitening benefits as advertised, which Procter & Gamble argue is untrue
• Where: Procter & Gamble asked New York federal court to toss the false advertising Crest charcoal toothpaste class action

(07/30/2021)

Charcoal-infused Crest toothpastes are not advertised as having more whitening abilities than other toothpastes, are not more expensive, and are not damaging to teeth and gums, Procter & Gamble has argued in an attempt to get a class action lawsuit tossed from the courts.

Procter & Gamble is facing a class action lawsuit, filed by New York resident Belinda Housey, which alleges that the company falsely advertised the charcoal toothpastes as providing “enamel-safe whitening,” adding they “gently clean” and “promote healthier gums,” Law360 reports. However, Housey says in the claim that “charcoal is highly abrasive and harmful substance to tooth enamel.”

Yet, this week Procter & Gamble called on a New York federal court to toss the Crest charcoal toothpaste lawsuit, saying that Housey’s claims that the toothpastes are damaging for customers are untrue and not backed up by scientific evidence.

Her class action lawsuit names Crest Gum Detoxify Charcoal Toothpaste, Crest 3D White Whitening Toothpaste with Charcoal, and Crest 3D White Toothpaste Whitening Therapy Charcoal with Hemp Seed Oil as falsely advertising whitening benefits from charcoal, but Procter & Gamble says that the whitening claims are about the product, not individual ingredients.

“Each of these common statements plainly relate to the benefits of using these toothpastes in general, and not anything about the charcoal ingredient in particular.”

The company said in its motion for dismissal that rather than “pleading basic facts to support her claim, Plaintiff relies on a series of ‘scientific studies’ that purport to show that charcoal does not provide any special health benefits to consumers.”

It added that none of the studies demonstrates that adding charcoal makes the entire toothpaste product unfit for consumers to use.

“The publications address the wholly different question of whether charcoal provides additional health benefits to consumers — a claim that P&G has never made, and a claim that Plaintiff does not pursue.”

The company argued that the class action should be dismissed due to rulings made in similar cases: “Courts have dismissed lawsuits challenging statements that refer to the whole product when the underlying factual allegations relate solely to a particular ingredient.”

Procter & Gamble also added that the fact that the American Dental Association hadn’t awarded its “seal of acceptance” to any charcoal infused toothpastes didn’t mean anything, given the seal wasn’t mandatory and the association’s approval does not indicate a defective product. It added that the charcoal toothpastes are not more expensive than other types, as Housey alleges in the claim.

This isn’t the only lawsuit the company is facing for the advertising of its toothpastes. This month, it was hit with a class action lawsuit alleging that it misleads consumers by advertising its Oral-B and Crest toothpastes as being able to repair gum damage, something that no toothpaste is able to do.

Do you use charcoal infused toothpaste? Tell us what you think about the products in the comments section!

Housey is represented by Jonathan Shub and Kevin Laukaitis of Shub Law Firm LLC and Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP.

Procter & Gamble is represented by Henry Liu, Andrew Soukup and Gawon Go of Covington & Burling LLP.

The Crest Charcoal False Ad Class Action Lawsuit is Belinda Housey v. Procter & Gamble Co., Case No. 1:21-cv-02286, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Procter & Gamble Falsely Advertises Crest, Oral-B Toothpastes As Curing Gum Damage, Class Action Claims
• Colgate Class Action Challenges Whitening Toothpaste Claims
• Old Spice Chemical Burn Alleged in Two Class Action Lawsuits
• Pampers Class Action Says ‘Natural’ Wipes Are Falsely Advertised