Sonicare objected — as amicus curiae — to a class-action settlement that sought to resolve claims filed against Philips for falsely advertising its Sonicare AirFloss as an easy replacement for floss when, in reality, the product — an oral irrigator — could not remove plaque between the teeth the same way that traditional floss could.


November 4

A final fairness hearing regarding the proposed settlement is held in the Southern District of California before Judge Marilyn Huff. Judge Huff acknowledges’s arguments, but ultimately denies’s request to file its brief and approves the parties’ settlement agreement.

November 2 files a reply brief to the parties’ oppositions to’s Motion for Leave.

November 1

Plaintiffs file an opposition to’s Motion for Leave to file the amicus brief.

October 31

Philips files an opposition to’s Motion for Leave to file the amicus brief.

October 15 files a brief as amicus curiae opposing the proposed settlement reached by the parties, as well as a Motion for Leave to file the brief.

May 28

The parties reach a settlement agreement.


Plaintiffs file a class-action complaint (which is later amended in September) against Philips.

* The above events do not represent the entire procedural history of the case, but rather only highlights some key events pertaining to’s involvement in the case.


The Latest

Filters Wants More Teeth in Class-Action Settlement

Press Release Wants More Teeth in Class-Action Settlement

Philips Sonicare Airfloss Settlement Doesn’t Adequately Compensate Consumers MADISON, CT., Oct. 16, 2013 — ( has filed a legal brief taking aim at a recent class-action settlement that compensates…