Colgate Optic White and Colgate Optic White Platinum Toothpastes

June 2019: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to deny class certification in the Dean case.

December 2018: The Canale case was voluntarily dismissed When a complaint is dismissed with prejudice, it cannot be refiled., the reasons for which have not been disclosed.

July 2018: Plaintiffs in the Dean case appealed the district court’s order denying class certification.

March 2018: A federal judge in the Dean case denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class.

June 2017: The Dean case was stayed pending an FTC investigation of the company’s claim that the toothpaste whitens teeth.

November 2016: The named plaintiff in Vigil voluntarily dismissed her claims When a complaint is dismissed without prejudice, an amended version of the complaint can be refiled., the reasons for which have not been disclosed.

January 2015 – May 2016: Three class-action lawsuits were filed against Colgate-Palmolive Co. for allegedly deceptively marketing Colgate Optic White toothpaste. According to the complaints, the company deceptively markets Colgate Optic White toothpaste as “Go[ing] Beyond Surface Stain Removal to Deeply Whiten” teeth when, in reality, the toothpastes do not work as advertised. The complaint alleges that there is not enough of the whitening ingredient (peroxide) in the toothpastes and that it is not in contact with the teeth for long enough. To see the complaints, click on the links below.

• Canale et al v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Case No. 16-cv-3308, S. D. NY.
• Dean et al v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Case No. 15-cv-107, C. D. CA.
• Vigil et al v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., Case No. 16-cv-2697, N. D. CA.

According to the Canale complaint, the company also deceptively markets Colgate Optic White Platinum toothpaste as “Deeply Whiten[ing] More Than 3 Shades” when the toothpaste does not work as advertised.

For more information about toothpastes and TINA.org’s coverage of the products, click here.