Procter & Gamble must face class action lawsuit over lead in tampons

P&G Tampax class action lawsuit overview:

• Who: A California federal judge has ruled that a class action lawsuit alleging Procter & Gamble misled consumers about the safety of its tampons can proceed.
• Why: The judge rejected P&G’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiffs’ claims are plausible and supported by sufficient facts.
• Where: The class action lawsuit is pending in California federal court.

A class action lawsuit alleging Procter & Gamble misled consumers about the safety of its tampons can proceed, a California federal judge has ruled.

Plaintiffs Allison Barton and Jana Moreno claim P&G’s Tampax Pearl and Tampax Radiant tampons contain lead, a toxic heavy metal that can cause serious health problems. They also allege P&G falsely advertised its tampons as safe and free of harmful substances, leading consumers to believe they were using a safe product.

P&G filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the plaintiffs’ claims were not plausible and that they had not shown that the tampons posed a health risk. The company also challenged the plaintiffs’ testing of the tampons, saying it was insufficient to prove the presence of lead.

However, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel denied P&G’s motion, ruling that the plaintiffs had alleged enough facts to support their claims and that their testing was adequate at this stage of the case.

Judge: Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that P&G’s tampons contain lead

The judge said the plaintiffs had plausibly alleged that P&G’s tampons contain lead and that the company’s advertising was misleading. He noted that the plaintiffs had provided details about the testing methodology and the qualifications of the laboratory that conducted the tests, and that they had alleged that the tampons exposed consumers to lead levels that exceed California’s Proposition 65 limits.

Curiel also rejected P&G’s argument that the plaintiffs had not alleged a material misrepresentation, saying that the presence of lead in tampons could be a material concern for consumers.

Determining what constitutes an “unsafe level” of lead or cadmium is a question of fact not appropriately resolved on a motion to dismiss, Curiel wrote.

The judge did dismiss the plaintiffs’ claim under the “unfair” prong of California’s Unfair Competition Law, finding that their allegations were too conclusory. However, he allowed their claims under the law’s “unlawful” and “fraudulent” prongs to proceed.

The case will now move to the discovery phase, where the parties will exchange evidence and prepare for a possible trial.

In 2024, P&G faced a similar class action lawsuit alleging it failed to disclose that its Tampax tampons contain unsafe levels of lead, violating New York’s consumer protection laws and breaching implied product safety guarantees.

What do you think of the judge’s decision to allow the Procter & Gamble class action lawsuit to proceed? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by Naomi B. Spector of KamberLaw LLP.

The P&G Tampax class action lawsuit is Barton, et al. v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-01332-GPC-SBC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Ford recalls 312K vehicles due to power brake assist issue
• $24.8M Grubhub settlement ends decade-long driver misclassification class action lawsuit
• Target sued over allegedly slack-filled Good & Gather peach slices
• Capri-Sun class action alleges ‘100% juice’ drink contains synthetic ingredients