In a significant legal move, a group of plaintiffs has filed a class action lawsuit against a major consumer goods company over allegations of misleading marketing practices. On January 13, 2025, Patricia Gurrola, Deena Johnson, Eileen Aviles, and Sushmadavi Lakeram lodged their complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Chattem, Inc., the manufacturer of ACT Anticavity Fluoride Rinse. The plaintiffs claim that the company's marketing strategies falsely suggest that its fluoride mouthrinse is safe for young children.
The lawsuit centers around Chattem's product, ACT Kids mouthrinse, which is marketed with bright colors and child-friendly imagery. The plaintiffs argue that this packaging misleads consumers into believing the product is safe for preschool-aged children. However, according to guidelines from several health organizations including the FDA and ADA, fluoride mouthrinses are not recommended for children under six due to risks such as dental fluorosis and acute toxicity if swallowed. "The use of flavored consumer fluoride products increases the possibility that a child will ingest a toxic dose of fluoride," states a review cited in the complaint.
The plaintiffs assert that Chattem's labeling practices violate multiple consumer protection laws by failing to adequately warn consumers about these risks. They highlight that despite being aware of these dangers, Chattem continues to market its product using candy-like flavors and imagery appealing to young children. The complaint also notes that Chattem's website once contained language indicating ADA approval was limited to older children but removed this after receiving pre-suit notice from the plaintiffs.
In terms of relief, the plaintiffs seek monetary damages for themselves and other similarly affected consumers who purchased ACT Rinse under false pretenses. They argue they would not have bought the product had they known it was contraindicated for young children. Additionally, they call for corrective advertising and changes in labeling practices to prevent further consumer deception.
Representing the plaintiffs are attorneys specializing in consumer rights litigation. The case is assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-366 with Judge Edward Chen presiding over proceedings.