Philips Sonicare AirFloss

November 2013: The federal judge presiding over the case acknowledged TINA.org’s arguments, but ultimately approved the settlement to this class-action lawsuit. For details regarding the settlement terms, click here.

October 2013: TINA.org filed a brief as (Latin for “friend of the courts.”) A person or organization that is not a party to a lawsuit but has a significant interest in the case and offers information that may be important to the court’s determination. opposing the proposed settlement. For a summary of TINA.org’s legal efforts in this case, click here. To see TINA.org’s full brief, click here.

May-July 2013: The parties reached a proposed settlement, which provides vouchers instead of cash to California consumers who purchased the AirFloss between Jan. 1, 2011 and June 24, 2013, and a federal judge preliminarily approved it.

December 2012: A federal judge has paved the way for a class-action lawsuit against Philips Oral Healthcare to move forward. The company tried to get the lawsuit dismissed by saying that the claims were based on “nonactionable puffery,” but U.S. District Judge Marilyn L. Huff rejected its arguments.

September 2012: A class-action lawsuit against Philips Oral Healthcare, originally filed in June 2012, was amended. The plaintiffs claim that the company misleads consumers into thinking that using the AirFloss would be the same as using traditional dental floss.

(Perkins et al Philips Oral Healthcare, Inc., Philips Electronics North America Corporation, and Does 1-20, Case No. 12-cv-1414, S. D. CA.).

For more information about TINA’s involvement in this case and TINA’s coverage of it, click here.