Growing legal pressure now surrounds several Hello toothpaste products after consumers brought two separate class actions targeting the brand’s labeling and safety practices. The cases took shape in different courts but share a single theme. Buyers say the company used marketing that shaped expectations about natural ingredients and child safety while failing to meet those promises. Each lawsuit pushes deeper into questions that regulators and courts now hear more often from consumers who expect accuracy when companies advertise personal care items as clean, gentle, or free from certain additives.
A rising wave of filings has left Hello facing allegations about synthetic sweeteners in adult toothpaste and reported heavy-metal contamination in children’s toothpaste. The Flaherty case centers on labeling tied to artificial sweeteners. The Browne case focuses on lead and mercury findings. These are distinct disputes, yet they overlap in how they test the boundaries of consumer trust. The cases also highlight how quickly litigation escalates when national brands appeal to parents and health-conscious shoppers. Courts now examine both the language used on the packages and the testing behind the products.
How the Lawsuits Started
The first major action came from plaintiff Norah Flaherty. She purchased a Hello toothpaste labeled as having no artificial sweeteners. Her complaint alleged that the product used synthetic sugar alcohols, including sorbitol and xylitol, which she argued qualified as artificial. She claimed this misled her because she selected the toothpaste expecting natural alternatives. The lawsuit accused the company of violating state consumer protection laws and sought class-wide relief for buyers who paid premium prices under expectations shaped by the “no artificial sweeteners” label.
A second wave of litigation arrived when plaintiff Dana Browne filed a class action targeting Hello Kids toothpastes. Testing cited in the complaint reported high levels of lead and mercury in certain products designed for children. The allegations said the company marketed those toothpastes as safe and appealing for kids without disclosing contamination risks. That complaint focused less on marketing language and more on product safety. Both cases emerged amid growing scrutiny toward children’s items, especially products used daily.
Background of the Cases
Hello built its marketing around natural positioning. The company promoted bright packaging and friendly messaging while featuring ingredients that many buyers considered cleaner than mainstream brands. The “no artificial sweeteners” statement fit squarely within that strategy. The plaintiffs argue this messaging created expectations about purity that did not align with the final formulation.
The children’s case followed concerns after testing referenced in the complaint showed lead levels well above thresholds used in environmental standards for drinking water. The suit said parents had no warning that a toothpaste marketed for kids might contain heavy metals. Those allegations raised stakes because parents often choose Hello to avoid synthetic additives. The claims challenged not only the safety screening but the accuracy of packaging that implied child-friendly protection.
Key Allegations
The Flaherty case alleges that Hello mislabeled products by promoting sweetener-free formulas while using chemically processed sugar alcohols. The complaint argues that these ingredients should qualify as artificial because they emerge through industrial processing rather than natural extraction. The plaintiff claims she would not have purchased or paid the same price had the label clearly described the ingredients.
The Browne case alleges that Hello sold kids’ toothpaste containing troubling concentrations of lead and mercury. The complaint asserts that the company failed to disclose those results and continued to market the toothpaste toward young children. The plaintiffs say the presence of heavy metals contradicts expectations set by branding that suggests safety for daily use. Both cases seek injunctions, monetary relief, and labeling changes. The company denies wrongdoing in the filings it has submitted.
Timeline of the Hello Toothpaste Cases
Early Complaints and Consumer Signals
Parents and adult consumers had raised informal concerns well before formal filings. Buyers discussed taste, texture, and ingredient transparency in online forums, and some posts questioned what natural meant in the context of sugar alcohols. The heavy-metal allegations surfaced more abruptly once plaintiffs referenced laboratory results. These concerns built momentum as consumer advocacy groups increased scrutiny toward personal care products marketed for children.
Company Response
Hello’s corporate entity, now associated with Colgate-Palmolive after a transfer of assets, pushed back in court. The company argued through filings that the sweetener claims were based on assumptions about consumer expectations and that the terms used on the labels had established definitions. The company maintained that plaintiffs misinterpreted the marketing language. The children’s case reached the court more recently, and the company stated in public filings that it intended to challenge the claims. Both complaints face resistance rooted in disputes over testing, labeling language, and regulatory standards.
Court Filings and Legal Steps
The Flaherty case originated in Illinois state court before moving to federal court in the Northern District of Illinois under case number 1:23-cv-01990. The court addressed jurisdictional questions and issued an opinion explaining how the dissolution of Hello Products LLC affected the case’s posture. The judge accepted the plaintiff’s factual allegations for procedural review but later dismissed the suit on jurisdictional grounds rather than on the merits. The Browne case began in New York federal court, where plaintiffs sought class certification and damages. That case focuses on contamination claims and continues through preliminary procedural stages.
Judge Notes or Judicial Signals
The judge in the Flaherty case characterized the dispute as one rooted in jurisdiction and federalism. The court stated that it needed to resolve those issues before reaching any argument about labeling accuracy. The dismissal left plaintiffs with potential options to refile or pursue alternative venues. The Browne case has not yet reached substantive judicial commentary on the merits, and the early posture offers limited insight into the court’s views on the heavy-metal claims.
Government or Regulatory Actions
No federal agency has issued public enforcement actions tied directly to these lawsuits. Health agencies have not released formal findings related to the specific products named in the cases. The absence of regulatory action leaves the litigation as the primary vehicle for examining the claims. The plaintiffs rely on consumer protection statutes and private testing rather than federal oversight.
Settlement Timeline
The current lawsuits have no settlement announcements. A prior 2019 case involving Hello’s charcoal toothpaste ended with a financial settlement and marketing adjustments. That earlier dispute focused on whitening claims and enamel erosion rather than sweeteners or heavy metals. The current cases remain active without resolution.
Current Status
The Flaherty case stands dismissed on jurisdictional grounds, leaving the plaintiff to consider further steps. The Browne case proceeds in early stages as parties prepare for arguments about testing methods and class certification. Both suits continue to attract public attention because they involve everyday products used by families. The outcomes could influence labeling choices and testing practices across the oral-care market.
Additional Case Details
The children’s complaint highlights two specific products. Testing referenced in the case reported lead concentrations above four hundred parts per billion in certain Hello Kids toothpaste varieties. Mercury appeared as well, though at lower levels. Plaintiffs describe those results as incompatible with any product meant for young children. The filing argues that a parent cannot evaluate risk when packaging omits warnings or disclosures. Plaintiffs say the issue becomes more serious because toothpaste is used twice a day and often swallowed in small amounts by children.
The sweetener case presents a different challenge. Buyers who select natural-market brands often rely heavily on statements such as “no artificial sweeteners.” Plaintiffs argue that any synthetic processing undermines that claim. The case asks the court to decide whether a reasonable consumer would view sugar alcohols as artificial. The answer could affect how natural-market brands craft ingredient descriptions.
Final Summary
The Hello toothpaste litigation offers two distinct tests of consumer trust. One case questions the use of synthetic sweeteners in products marketed as natural. Another questions whether children’s toothpaste contained harmful contaminants. Both actions reflect a broader shift toward strict accountability for ingredient disclosures. The outcomes may shape how companies market oral-care products and how courts interpret the expectations of modern consumers.
Disclaimer: This article provides general information, not legal advice. If you have any questions about this, please don’t hesitate to contact us.