Colgate Hello Kids Toothpaste Lawsuit Heavy Metals Update

If you bought Hello Kids toothpaste, you have probably seen headlines about lead and mercury. The litigation has changed a lot since the first complaint in July 2025. The Hello Kids lawsuits are no longer scattered across courts. They now sit in one federal case in Manhattan, and the defendant on the docket is Colgate-Palmolive Company, not just the Hello brand.

There is also a separate Colgate toothpaste ruling from June 2026 that matters for this case. Many websites mix the two up, so this guide keeps them apart.

What Parents Need to Know About the Hello Toothpaste Lawsuit Right Now

The Hello Kids heavy-metals lawsuits are putative class actions. No class has been certified, and no court has found that Hello Kids toothpaste is unsafe.

The lead case is Browne v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, No. 1:25-cv-05698-JPO, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, before Judge J. Paul Oetken.
There is no settlement, no claim form, no payout and no deadline to file anything. Any site that offers one is not describing a real Hello toothpaste settlement.
I found no FDA recall of Hello Kids toothpaste for lead or mercury.

The plaintiffs’ test results are allegations. Colgate-Palmolive disputes the claims.

Hello Toothpaste Lawsuit Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Lead case	Browne v. Colgate-Palmolive Company (originally Browne v. Hello Products LLC)
Lead case number	1:25-cv-05698-JPO (S.D.N.Y.)
Judge	J. Paul Oetken
First filed	July 2025 (the docket lists July 10; some copies of the complaint carry a July 11, 2025 stamp)
Named plaintiffs on the lead docket	Damany Browne, Jennifer Pettit, Cassaundra Maxwell
Other plaintiffs in the consolidated litigation	Nathan Barton and Cynthia Fahrnkopf (from Barton)
Defendant	Colgate-Palmolive Company, the parent company of Hello Products LLC
Products named	Hello Kids Dragon Dazzle Fluoride, Hello Kids Fluoride Free Fresh Watermelon, and other Hello Kids flavors including Unicorn Sparkle, Smiling Shark, Magical Mermaid and Wild Strawberry
Substances alleged	Lead and mercury
Main legal theories	Deceptive practices and false advertising under state consumer protection laws
Class certified?	No
Settlement or claim form?	No
FDA recall?	No recall for lead or mercury found
Trial date	None set

What the Hello Kids Lead and Mercury Lawsuit Alleges

The first complaint, Browne v. Hello Products LLC, was filed in the Southern District of New York. It says an independent testing source, Lead Safe Mama, tested two Hello Kids products and found lead and mercury. The complaint compares those results with the EPA’s drinking-water numbers, then argues that Hello’s marketing hid the problem.

Product (as alleged)	Lead	Mercury
Hello Kids Dragon Dazzle Fluoride Toothpaste	about 428.4 ppb	about 11.8 ppb
Hello Kids Fluoride Free Toothpaste, Fresh Watermelon	about 493 ppb	about 19 ppb

The complaint says the lead in the two products is roughly 28 and 32 times the EPA’s 15 ppb water action level. It also points to the EPA’s 2 ppb maximum contaminant level for inorganic mercury in drinking water.

The marketing claims are central. The complaint points to branding such as “kids,” “Kids 2+,” “safe for all ages,” “high quality ingredients” and “naturally friendly.” Plaintiffs say a parent reading those words would not expect measurable lead or mercury, and would have paid less or skipped the product if they had known.

The second complaint, Barton and Fahrnkopf v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, was filed on October 22, 2025, in the Southern District of California (No. 3:25-cv-02833). It named Colgate-Palmolive directly and cited testing that reportedly found lead between 236 ppb and 658 ppb across several Hello Kids flavors.

All of these numbers come from the plaintiffs’ pleadings. They have not been tested in court.

How Three Hello Toothpaste Cases Became One Federal Lawsuit

Date	What happened
July 2025	Browne filed in S.D.N.Y. against Hello Products LLC.
October 22, 2025	Barton filed in the Southern District of California against Colgate-Palmolive.
January 29, 2026	Colgate-Palmolive moved to change venue in Barton.
February 27 to March 9, 2026	Barton was transferred to New York and received there as No. 1:26-cv-01931.
March 12, 2026	Judge Oetken granted an unopposed motion and consolidated Barton into Browne for all purposes, with Browne as the lead case.
Spring 2026	The deadline for a consolidated amended complaint was extended to April 10, 2026.

The docket also lists a third related action, No. 1:26-cv-01434-JPO, as an associated case on the Browne and Barton dockets. That is why legal coverage describes three Hello heavy-metal cases being managed together. Court dockets change often, so check the current caption and the list of consolidated members before relying on any exact count.

Earlier coverage lists KamberLaw LLP as counsel in Barton and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP as counsel in Brower. Law360 reported the June 25 Brower ruling on June 29, 2026 under the headline “Colgate Escapes Omission Claims In Lead Toothpaste Action.” Counsel can change, so confirm on the docket.

Consolidation does not mean the plaintiffs won anything. It is a case-management step. One judge handles overlapping claims, which avoids duplicate rulings and wasted effort. The court transferred Barton under the federal venue-transfer statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), after Colgate asked to move it.

Why Colgate-Palmolive Is Now the Defendant in the Hello Toothpaste Case

Colgate-Palmolive bought Hello Products in 2020. The first complaint named Hello Products LLC. The consolidated docket is now captioned Browne v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, so the parent company is the named defendant. In practical terms, the lawsuit is aimed at the company that owns the brand and, according to the plaintiffs, stood behind its marketing.

That also explains why older articles list different case names. The New York case first carried the Hello Products name, and the California case named Colgate from the start.

The June 25, 2026 Colgate Ruling That Could Shape the Hello Case

This is the part most coverage gets wrong. On June 25, 2026, the Southern District of New York issued a ruling in a different case, Brower v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 2026 WL 1831253 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2026), No. 1:25-cv-03348-JPO. The “JPO” in the number shows it is also assigned to Judge Oetken.

Brower is a putative nationwide class action over lead and mercury in Colgate-branded toothpastes. It is not a Hello case and it is not one of the consolidated Hello matters. Some websites have reported the June ruling as if it narrowed the Hello Kids case. According to the dockets I reviewed, it did not. It matters because the same judge, the same defendant and the same type of heavy-metals theory are involved.

According to a defense-side legal blog that analyzed the opinion, the court did the following:

Dismissed the omission claims as preempted. The court held that claims based on Colgate’s failure to disclose heavy metals on the label were expressly preempted by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. § 379r(a). The reasoning was that federal law does not require a heavy-metal disclosure on toothpaste labels, so a state-law duty to disclose would add a requirement on top of federal law.
Kept the affirmative misrepresentation claims. Claims challenging voluntary statements such as “Whole Mouth Health” and “Responsibly Made” survived. The court treated them as parallel to the federal ban on false or misleading labeling in 21 U.S.C. § 352(a)(1), not as extra requirements.
Kept the New York and California consumer claims. New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 survived, as did California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law. Two Minnesota consumer statutes survived, but the Minnesota deceptive trade practices claim was dismissed.
Trimmed plaintiffs for lack of standing. Several plaintiffs were dismissed because they did not tie the testing data to the products they actually bought. The court noted missing details such as the number of samples, the date of testing and who ran the tests. It also held that each named plaintiff must show their own standing.
Dismissed unjust enrichment as duplicative and declined, for now, to decide the statute-of-limitations question.

Here is why this could matter for Hello. A district judge’s ruling in one case does not bind another case, even before the same judge. But it shows how he may analyze similar arguments. If Colgate raises the same preemption argument against the Hello Kids plaintiffs, the likely fault line is the one Brower drew: claims that Colgate should have disclosed heavy metals are the most exposed, while claims that its “kids” and “naturally friendly” marketing was misleading have a better chance of surviving. The Hello plaintiffs’ standing allegations about specific products and specific testing could also come under the same scrutiny.

These are predictions about arguments, not outcomes. I did not find a ruling on a motion to dismiss in the consolidated Hello case in the records I reviewed.

Hello Toothpaste Lawsuit Update Three Cases Consolidated Against Colgate Over Alleged Lead and Mercury

Drug or Cosmetic: Why Fluoride and Fluoride-Free Hello Toothpastes Face Different Rules

The federal rules depend on what kind of product a toothpaste is. That distinction is easy to miss, and it may matter here.

Fluoride toothpaste is an over-the-counter drug. The FDA regulates it under its anticavity drug monograph, and the drug preemption clause in 21 U.S.C. § 379r(a) applies. Hello Kids Dragon Dazzle Fluoride falls in this group.
Fluoride-free toothpaste is generally treated as a cosmetic. Cosmetics are covered by a different preemption provision, 21 U.S.C. § 379s, added by the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022. Hello Kids Fluoride Free Fresh Watermelon falls in this group.

As reported, Brower analyzed the over-the-counter drug clause. I did not find a public ruling on how the cosmetic provision applies to the Hello Kids fluoride-free products. Both preemption provisions also contain language preserving state product liability actions, which is one reason this litigation is framed as consumer fraud and false advertising, not as personal injury.

Separately, the FDCA treats a cosmetic as adulterated if it contains a poisonous or deleterious substance that may make it injurious to users under normal use (21 U.S.C. § 361). The plaintiffs in the Hello cases mostly rely on state consumer laws, so that adulteration rule is background, not a pleaded centerpiece.

Laws at Issue in the Hello Toothpaste Lawsuit

Law	What it does	Why it matters here
New York General Business Law § 349	Bans deceptive acts in consumer transactions. A plaintiff generally must show consumer-oriented conduct that was materially misleading and caused injury (Oswego Laborers’ Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, 85 N.Y.2d 20 (1995)).	The core claim in Browne. Under § 349(h), a plaintiff can recover actual damages or $50, whichever is greater, and a court may increase the award up to three times, capped at $1,000, for willful or knowing violations. Attorney’s fees are available.
New York General Business Law § 350	Bans false advertising.	Targets the “kids,” “safe for all ages” and “naturally friendly” messaging. Under § 350-e, recovery is actual damages or $500, whichever is greater, with trebling up to $10,000 for willful violations.
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.)	Protects consumers from unfair or deceptive practices.	Relevant to the California purchasers in Barton. A pre-suit notice is required before seeking damages, and the limitations period is three years.
California Unfair Competition Law (Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200) and False Advertising Law (§ 17500)	Bar unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices and untrue advertising.	Remedies are mainly restitution and injunctions, with a four-year limitations period for UCL claims.
21 U.S.C. § 379r(a)	Preempts state requirements on OTC drugs that differ from or add to federal ones.	The basis for Colgate’s preemption argument in Brower.
21 U.S.C. § 379s	Cosmetic preemption provision.	May apply to fluoride-free Hello Kids products.
21 U.S.C. § 352(a)(1)	Treats a drug as misbranded if its labeling is false or misleading.	Why affirmative misrepresentation claims can run parallel to federal law.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23	Governs class certification.	No Hello class exists until a judge certifies one.
Article III standing (TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021))	Requires each plaintiff to show a concrete injury.	A recurring weak point in contamination class actions.
28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (Class Action Fairness Act)	Gives federal courts jurisdiction over many large class actions.	One reason these consumer cases sit in federal court.
California Proposition 65 (Health & Safety Code § 25249.6)	Requires a warning for exposure to listed chemicals above safe-harbor levels. Lead and mercury compounds are on the state’s list.	Often used in heavy-metal product suits in California, but I did not see it pleaded in the Hello records I reviewed. Enforcers must send a 60-day notice before suing.

New York’s consumer protection claims generally carry a three-year limitations period, which is why the Brower defendants argued that older purchases were time-barred. Statutes differ by state, and I am not giving a deadline for any individual.

Are the Lead and Mercury Numbers in the Hello Toothpaste Lawsuit Legal Limits?

No. This is the point readers most often get wrong.

The EPA’s 15 ppb lead action level and 2 ppb mercury limit apply to public drinking water. They are not limits for toothpaste.
The FDA’s 100 ppb (0.1 ppm) number comes from guidance on lead in candy likely to be eaten often by small children. It is not a legal standard for toothpaste either.
I did not find a numeric FDA limit for lead or mercury in toothpaste.

Plaintiffs use those benchmarks because they are the closest official reference points, and because health agencies say no level of lead exposure is known to be safe for children. Colgate-Palmolive and Hello dispute that the reported levels are meaningful, and note that trace metals occur naturally in raw materials, soil and water.

There is a real scientific question too. Comparing parts per billion in a paste with parts per billion in a glass of water is imperfect, because children swallow only part of the toothpaste they use. The Brower court declined to decide the harm question at the pleading stage and left it for later. Expect the amount of lead a child actually ingests to be a major battleground.

Where the Hello Toothpaste Lawsuit Stands in November 2026

No class has been certified.
No settlement has been announced, and there is no settlement fund or claims administrator.
No trial date has been set.
I found no ruling on a motion to dismiss in the consolidated Hello case. Case activity moves quickly, so check the docket for the latest.
No court has found that Hello Kids toothpaste contains unsafe levels of lead or mercury, or that Colgate-Palmolive violated any law.
I found no FDA recall of Hello Kids toothpaste for lead or mercury. A separate 2023 voluntary recall involved a fluoride labeling mix-up and is unrelated to heavy metals.

Other Hello and Colgate Lawsuits People Confuse With the Heavy-Metals Case

Hello charcoal toothpaste settlement ($1.5 million). Patellos v. Hello Products, LLC (S.D.N.Y.) alleged that Hello’s charcoal toothpastes were falsely marketed as safe and effective for whitening. Hello denied wrongdoing and agreed to a $1.5 million class settlement that paid roughly $6 per product. The claim period ended years ago and no claims are being accepted.

“No artificial sweeteners” case. Flaherty v. Hello Products LLC (Illinois federal court, filed in 2023) challenged Hello’s “No Artificial Sweeteners” label because the toothpaste contains sorbitol and xylitol. I found no broad consumer settlement in that case.

Procter & Gamble v. Hello. An earlier competitor dispute over “99% natural” claims (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:14-cv-00649) ended with Hello dropping the claim and moving to “naturally friendly.” It was not a consumer class action.

Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse case. Cook v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, No. 1:25-cv-05448 (N.D. Ill.), concerns the kids’ fluoride rinse, not toothpaste, and is a separate case. Reporting says the judge allowed core rinse claims to proceed on March 30, 2026.

Colgate Total and SLS case. Fry v. The Colgate-Palmolive Company, No. 3:26-cv-03858 (S.D. Cal.), was filed July 24, 2026 over sodium lauryl sulfate. It has nothing to do with lead or Hello.

Tom’s of Maine settlement ($2.9 million). Rabinowitz v. Colgate-Palmolive, No. 2:25-cv-06996 (E.D.N.Y.), settled over Tom’s of Maine toothpaste. The claim deadline was July 6, 2026 and a final approval hearing was set for September 10, 2026. It does not cover Hello toothpaste. Our full guide is here: $2.9M Tom’s of Maine Toothpaste Settlement, Check If You Qualify for a Refund Deadline is July 6.

What Parents Can Do While the Hello Toothpaste Lawsuit Is Pending

This is general information, not medical advice.

Talk to your child’s pediatrician or dentist before changing anything, especially if your child has other lead exposure risks or you want to ask about blood lead testing.
Do not simply drop fluoride. Dental groups recommend fluoride toothpaste for children. The usual guidance is a rice-grain smear for children under three and a pea-sized amount for ages three to six, with an adult supervising so the child spits instead of swallowing. Ask your dentist what fits your child.
Keep your receipts, tube photos and lot numbers if you want to preserve evidence for yourself.
Report health concerns to the FDA through MedWatch if your child had a reaction you think is linked to a product.
Check the label and the manufacturer’s testing statements if heavy-metal testing matters to you. Some brands publish third-party results.

Can You Join or Claim Money in the Hello Toothpaste Class Action?

Not yet. In a putative class action, you do not have to sign up or file a claim form now. If a judge later certifies a class, eligible purchasers usually receive court-approved notice and a chance to opt out. If there is a settlement, there will be an official settlement website, a named administrator and a claims deadline.

Watch for scams. A real Hello settlement does not exist today. Be skeptical of:

“Hello toothpaste claim form” sites or ads
Quizzes asking you to “see if you qualify” and collect your phone number
“Recall refund” offers

If you want legal advice about your own situation, talk to a licensed attorney. You can also read the public filings yourself on CourtListener or PACER. For the other Colgate cases, including the fluoride and SLS suits, see Colgate Class Action Lawsuit, What Consumers Need to Know About Claims, Eligibility, and Deadlines 2026.

What to Watch Next in the Consolidated Hello Toothpaste Case

A consolidated amended complaint and any motion to dismiss. Expect arguments on preemption, standing and whether the “kids” and “natural” claims are misleading to a reasonable consumer.
How the court uses its Brower reasoning. The omission claims versus the affirmative misrepresentation claims is the line to watch.
Cosmetic versus drug treatment. A ruling on the fluoride-free products would be new ground.
Discovery and expert testing. Plaintiffs will need to link lab results to the specific products they bought.
Class certification under Rule 23. This is the real gate to any group recovery.

Hello Toothpaste Lawsuit FAQ

Is there a Hello toothpaste settlement I can file a claim for?

No. The only Hello toothpaste settlement was the $1.5 million charcoal settlement, and its claim period has closed. The Hello Kids lead and mercury lawsuits have no settlement, no claim form and no deadline.

Does Hello Kids toothpaste contain lead?

The plaintiffs allege it does, based on independent testing that reported lead between 236 ppb and 658 ppb across several flavors. Colgate-Palmolive disputes the claims. No court has made a finding either way, and I found no FDA recall.

Which Hello Kids toothpastes are named in the lawsuit?

The first complaint centers on Hello Kids Dragon Dazzle Fluoride and Hello Kids Fluoride Free Fresh Watermelon, and says all Hello-branded toothpastes are at issue. The California complaint cites other flavors, including Wild Strawberry, Unicorn Sparkle, Magical Mermaid and Smiling Shark.

Why is Colgate-Palmolive the defendant in the Hello toothpaste lawsuit?

Colgate-Palmolive acquired Hello Products in 2020. The consolidated docket is now captioned against Colgate-Palmolive Company, the parent company.

What did the June 25, 2026 Colgate toothpaste ruling decide?

In Brower v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., the court dismissed claims that Colgate should have disclosed heavy metals on its labels, holding them preempted by 21 U.S.C. § 379r(a). It kept claims that specific marketing statements were misleading. It is a separate case, not the Hello case.

Does the Brower ruling decide the Hello toothpaste lawsuit?

No. It does not bind the Hello case. But it is before the same judge and involves the same defendant, so the Hello plaintiffs and Colgate will both be watching how its reasoning is argued.

Is the FDA’s 100 ppb candy guidance a legal limit for toothpaste?

No. It is guidance about candy likely to be eaten often by small children. The EPA’s 15 ppb lead and 2 ppb mercury numbers apply to drinking water. Plaintiffs cite them as reference points, not as legal toothpaste limits.

What laws are the Hello Kids plaintiffs relying on?

Mainly state consumer protection laws, including New York General Business Law §§ 349 and 350 and California’s CLRA and UCL. Colgate’s likely defenses include federal preemption under the FDCA and challenges to standing.

Has a class been certified in the Hello toothpaste lawsuit?

No. Until a judge certifies a class under Rule 23, it remains a putative class action, and no one has an automatic right to compensation.

Was Hello Kids toothpaste recalled for lead or mercury?

I found no FDA recall for lead or mercury. A 2023 voluntary recall involved fluoride toothpaste packed in tubes labeled fluoride-free, which is a labeling issue and not a heavy-metals issue.

Should I stop using Hello toothpaste?

That is a question for your pediatrician or dentist. Dental groups recommend fluoride toothpaste for children, so ask what to use before you make a change.

How can I follow the Hello toothpaste case myself?

Search for Browne v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, No. 1:25-cv-05698-JPO, on CourtListener or PACER. Check the docket for the consolidated amended complaint, motions to dismiss and any class certification filings.

Sources and Methodology

This article is based on primary and near-primary sources reviewed on November 7, 2026:

Browne v. Hello Products LLC complaint, No. 7:25-cv-05698 (S.D.N.Y.)
Docket, Browne v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, No. 1:25-cv-05698-JPO
Docket, Barton et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company, No. 1:26-cv-01931, including the March 12, 2026 consolidation order
Brower v. Colgate-Palmolive Co. complaint, No. 1:25-cv-03348 (S.D.N.Y.)
Drug & Device Law, “Half-Squeezed” analysis of Brower, 2026 WL 1831253 (June 30, 2026)
Law360, “Colgate Escapes Omission Claims In Lead Toothpaste Action” (June 29, 2026)
Settlement Insight, Colgate lawsuit tracker (secondary source for the Cook, Fry and Tom’s of Maine matters, cross-checked against dockets where possible)
Tom’s of Maine settlement website
Statutes cited: 21 U.S.C. §§ 352, 361, 379r, 379s; N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349, 350, 350-e; Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq.; Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, 17500; Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25249.6; 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(d), 1404(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 23

AllAboutLawyer.com is an independent information site and is not affiliated with Colgate-Palmolive, Hello Products, any court or any law firm. Allegations in a complaint are not proven facts. If you spot an error or a docket change we missed, contact us and we will review and correct it, with the update date noted at the top of this page.

Israr Ahmad is a legal content researcher, not an attorney. This article summarizes public court records and reporting. It is general information, not legal or medical advice.

About the Author

Israr Ahmad is a legal content researcher with 4+ years of experience covering class action settlements and consumer rights cases. He has researched and published coverage of 2,500+ settlements using verified court records, settlement administrator filings, and government sources. Learn more about Israr.

Hello Toothpaste Lawsuit Update Three Cases Consolidated Against Colgate Over Alleged Lead and Mercury