Hello Toothpaste Lawsuit: Lead, Mercury, and Charcoal Settlement

The Hello toothpaste lawsuits center on two things: active 2025 class actions claiming Hello Kids toothpastes contain undisclosed lead and mercury, and an older false-advertising case over Hello’s charcoal toothpaste that settled for $1.5 million in 2022. The heavy-metals cases are still being litigated, so no payments are available yet. The charcoal settlement is closed and its claim deadline has passed.

The Lead and Mercury Class Actions

Two federal class actions filed in 2025 accuse Hello of selling children’s toothpaste that contains lead and mercury while marketing it as safe and “thoughtfully formulated.”

The first, Browne v. Hello Products LLC, was filed July 11, 2025, in the Southern District of New York (Case No. 7:25-cv-05698).1ClassAction.org. Hello Toothpaste Lawsuit Filed Over Alleged Lead, Mercury Contamination It names two products, with testing figures the complaint attributes to consumer safety group Lead Safe Mama:

The complaint brings claims under New York General Business Law § 349 (deceptive practices), § 350 (false advertising), and unjust enrichment.3ClassAction.org. Browne v. Hello Products LLC Complaint Hello Products filed a motion to dismiss on June 11, 2026, and the case is pending before Judge J. Paul Oetken.4CourtListener. Browne v. Hello Products LLC Docket

The second case, Barton and Fahrnkopf v. Colgate-Palmolive, was filed October 22, 2025, in the Southern District of California (Case No. 3:25-cv-02833) and names the parent company directly.5CourtListener. Barton v. Colgate-Palmolive Company Docket It covers a wider product range, including Unicorn Sparkle, Smiling Shark, Magical Mermaid, and Dragon Dazzle varieties, and alleges independent testing found lead between 236 and 658 ppb.6LawCommentary.com. Parents Sue Colgate Claiming Hello Kids Toothpaste Contains Unsafe Levels of Lead The claims arise under California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiffs are seeking economic damages for buying products they say they would not have purchased had the lead content been disclosed. They are not alleging personal injury.7CaseFilingsAlert.com. Barton and Fahrnkopf v. Colgate-Palmolive Complaint On February 27, 2026, the court granted Colgate-Palmolive’s motion to transfer the case out of the Southern District of California.

Neither case has produced a settlement or verdict. There is nothing to claim from these lawsuits at this stage.

What the Test Numbers Mean

The complaints frame the lead and mercury figures against the EPA’s drinking water limits: 15 ppb for lead and 2 ppb for mercury. By that measure, the Dragon Dazzle results run roughly 28 times the EPA lead action level and the Fresh Watermelon results roughly 32 times.1ClassAction.org. Hello Toothpaste Lawsuit Filed Over Alleged Lead, Mercury Contamination

Toothpaste is regulated as a cosmetic or drug rather than as drinking water. Current FDA limits allow up to 20,000 ppb of lead in fluoride toothpaste and 10,000 ppb in fluoride-free toothpaste, and none of the tested Hello products are alleged to exceed those thresholds.8The Guardian. Toothpaste Lead Heavy Metals Washington’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act sets a stricter 1,000 ppb limit for cosmetics effective January 1, 2025, which the tested Hello levels also fall below.9Vermont General Assembly. Lead in Cosmetics Products Report The plaintiffs argue those federal limits are outdated for products marketed to young children and point to the FDA’s own statement that there is “no known safe level of exposure for lead.”10Fortune. Toothpaste Brands Toxic Metals Lead Arsenic Mercury Cadmium

Lead Safe Mama’s broader testing of 51 toothpaste brands found lead in about 90%, arsenic in roughly 65%, and mercury in just under half, with contamination often traced to ingredients like bentonite clay, hydroxyapatite, and calcium carbonate.8The Guardian. Toothpaste Lead Heavy Metals

The 2022 Hello Charcoal Toothpaste Settlement

The only Hello case that has actually paid out is Patellos v. Hello Products, LLC (Case No. 1:19-cv-09577), filed in October 2019 in the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleged Hello’s charcoal toothpaste was falsely marketed as safe, effective, and whitening, when the activated charcoal in fact abraded enamel and did not deliver the promised benefits.11Bloomberg Law. Hello Charcoal Toothpaste $1.5 Million False Ad Deal Approved

The case resolved with a $1.5 million class settlement. Class members could claim roughly $6 per product, without proof of purchase for up to five products, with receipts required for claims of six to ten products, and a per-claimant cap around $60. Hello agreed to drop certain activated-charcoal representations but admitted no wrongdoing.12Simpluris. Notice of Class Action Settlement, Patellos v. Hello Products The claims deadline has passed, so no new claims can be submitted.

Other Pending Hello Lawsuits

Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse

Two 2025 class actions target Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse. Miller v. Hello Products LLC (Case No. 3:25-cv-00071), filed January 13, 2025, alleges the rinse’s candy and fruit flavors entice young children to swallow it, creating risk of acute fluoride toxicity and dental fluorosis, and that the product is misleadingly marketed as safe for children under six.13ClassAction.org. Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse Not Safe for Children Under Six, Class Action Lawsuit Claims A second case filed May 15, 2025, in the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:25-cv-05448) brings similar allegations under Illinois consumer fraud law. Both suits also allege Hello violated FDA regulations by omitting a required front-label directive to read the product’s directions.14Top Class Actions. Colgate Class Action Claims Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse Unsafe for Young Children

Artificial Sweetener Labeling

Flaherty v. Hello Products LLC (Case No. 2023CH01703), filed February 2023 in Cook County, Illinois, alleges Hello falsely marketed several toothpastes, including kids’ and toddler products, as containing “no artificial sweeteners” when they contain sorbitol and xylitol, which the complaint describes as synthetic chemicals produced through hydrogenation.15ClassAction.org. Flaherty v. Hello Products LLC Complaint Hello has moved to dismiss an amended complaint.16Top Class Actions. Hello Toothpaste Class Action Alleges Company Falsely Advertises No Artificial Sweeteners

The 2023 Wild Strawberry Recall Was Not a Lawsuit

Consumers sometimes look up “Hello toothpaste lawsuit” after seeing news of the 2023 recall. That event was a voluntary Colgate-Palmolive recall, not litigation. On August 10, 2023, the company recalled Hello Wild Strawberry Fluoride Toothpaste because some tubes inside cartons labeled “Wild Strawberry Fluoride” were actually printed with the “Fresh Watermelon Fluoride-Free” label, meaning affected tubes omitted the sodium fluoride disclosure, the FDA-required Drug Facts Box, directions for use, and child-safety warnings.17Hello Products. Public Announcement The recall covered six lot codes and 182,046 tubes sold on or after October 2022. The company said the formula met safety specifications and that no adverse events had been reported, and directed affected consumers to contact it for reimbursement.18Happi. Hello Wild Strawberry Toothpaste Recall Caused by Mislabeled Tubes

Why Some Suits Name Colgate-Palmolive

Colgate-Palmolive acquired Hello Products in January 2020, and Hello has operated as part of Colgate’s North America segment since.19Colgate-Palmolive Investor Relations. Colgate Announces Agreement to Acquire Hello Oral Care Brand That is why the Browne suit names Hello Products LLC as the manufacturing subsidiary, while the Barton suit names Colgate-Palmolive directly as the parent. Both are Hello toothpaste cases.