Colgate’s deceptive packaging may confuse parents.
Photo: SMO

Fluoridated mouth rinse is not recommended for those under 6 years old.

COLGATE LAWSUITS

A U.S. federal judge has ruled that Colgate-Palmolive must face a series of lawsuits that allege its children’s mouth rinse products were marketed in a way that could mislead parents about their safety for younger kids.

The decision allows multiple claims to proceed as potential class actions, marking a significant development in a growing wave of litigation focused on the marketing of fluoride-based dental products aimed at children.

The lawsuits argue that Colgate’s branding – including bright colours, sweet flavours and prominent “kids” labelling – created the impression that the mouth rinses were suitable for younger children, despite health guidance advising otherwise.

At the centre of the dispute is the use of fluoride in oral rinses.

While fluoride is widely recognised as ‘beneficial in preventing tooth decay’, dental ‘experts’ still generally do not recommend that children under six should use mouth rinses.

The concern is that younger children are more likely to swallow the liquid, rather than spit it out, potentially leading to excessive fluoride ingestion.

Plaintiffs in the case claim that Colgate failed to adequately communicate this risk on its packaging, or that any warnings provided were not sufficiently prominent to counterbalance the overall marketing message.

They argue that reasonable consumers – particularly parents – could have been misled into believing the products were safe for younger children.

Colgate had sought to have the lawsuits dismissed at an early stage, contending that its packaging included appropriate instructions and warnings.

They have also argued that consumers bear responsibility for reading said product labels.

However, the judge rejected this argument, finding that the claims raised plausible concerns about whether the overall presentation of the products could mislead buyers.

In the ruling, the court emphasised that the issue is not solely the presence of warnings, but whether those warnings are effectively communicated in the context of the product’s broader branding and design.

The judge concluded that a reasonable consumer could focus on the front-of-pack messaging and interpret the product as suitable for young children, potentially overlooking more detailed instructions elsewhere on the label.

The case forms part of a broader trend of legal challenges targeting the marketing of children’s health and hygiene products.

Other major manufacturers have faced comparable lawsuits, reflecting increasing scrutiny over how products are presented to parents and caregivers.

Consumer advocates argue that companies have a responsibility to ensure that marketing is not only technically accurate, but also clear and unambiguous – particularly where children’s health is concerned.

They contend that packaging designed to appeal to children can inadvertently signal suitability beyond what is medically recommended.

For its part, Colgate has maintained that its products are “safe when used as directed” and that it complies with applicable regulations and labelling requirements.

As the litigation proceeds, the case could have wider implications for the consumer goods industry, particularly in how companies balance marketing strategies with the need for clear and accessible safety information.

It may also prompt closer regulatory attention to the presentation of products intended for children – something that is long overdue.

For now, the ruling ensures that the claims against Colgate will be examined in full, with the potential to shape future standards around product labelling and consumer protection.

Fluoride and mass fluoridation programs have already had enough of an impact on the development of children to also be doing it via mouth rinses as well.

A calculated plan over generations to target and impact developing human beings.

THE FLUORIDE DECEPTION

A phosphate byproduct known as fluoride has been passed to growing Australian children for decades now, ingested via tap water, bottled products, showers/baths, and more.

This has had an unprecedented impact on the development of the next generation.

Even worse, it took decades for the truth to finally emerge on a public scale.

Fluoride Action Network (FAN) forced the release of a bombshell fluoride neurotoxicity study as part of their lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2023.

This report, a 6-year National Toxicology Program (NTP) review of fluoride neurotoxicity, was blocked from public release by the U.S Health and Human Services (HHS) Assistant Administrator in May 2022 – hidden from the public eye.

Inside this report were comments from external peer-reviewers and internal HHS departments, along with NTP’s responses, which analysed all human studies of fluoride’s effect on the developing brain.

External peer-reviewers all agreed with the conclusion that prenatal and early life fluoride exposures can reduce IQ and impact the developing brains of children.

Anti-fluoride campaigners force release of bombshell study in EPA lawsuit
RELATED ARTICLE

We already knew fluoride impacted children, as similar studies have been conducted in other countries highlighting the impacts of such exposure to the chemical.

For example, here is one study from 2020 published in Environment International.

This study is backed up by 76 other studies that also link fluoride to lowered-IQ in children.

During this trial, the government’s elected doctor withdrew from participation in the case and would not testify in-person at the trial after being caught lying about IQ and fluoride.

KEEP UP-TO-DATE

For more TOTT News:

Facebook — Facebook.com/TOTTNews

YouTube — YouTube.com/TOTTNews

Instagram — Instagram.com/TOTTNews

Twitter — Twitter.com/EthanTOTT

Rumble — Rumble.com/c/TOTTNews

Bitchute — Bitchute.com/channel/TOTTNews

Gab — Gab.com/TOTTNews

Tags: EN

1 thought on “Colgate faces U.S. lawsuits over fluoridated mouth rinse marketed to children”

Graham Lyons says:

April 7, 2026 at 22:11

Fluoride is a neurotoxin and it contributes to brittle bones, that can lead to the need for hip, etc replacement. The original studies that supposedly showed it reduced caries were badly flawed.

Dr Bailey on fluoride:

https://drsambailey.com/resources/videos/interviews/warning-fluoride-in-your-water/