Colgate-Palmolive and Tom's of Maine $2.9M Toothpaste Marketing Settlement Claim for Consumers

Colgate-Palmolive and its subsidiary Tom’s of Maine are part of a U.S. class action settlement over claims tied to toothpaste marketing that the lawsuit alleged was misleading to consumers after the FDA inspected Tom’s of Maine’s Sanford, Maine facility. According to the court-authorized notice, the case—*Rabinowitz et al. v. Colgate-Palmolive Company et al.* (E.D.N.Y., No. 2:25-cv-6996)—asserted that the company’s toothpaste promotions did not accurately match what regulators found, raising concerns that shoppers were being encouraged to purchase products based on representations that the plaintiffs argued were deceptive. The settlement fund is $2.9 million, and it is designed to compensate eligible U.S. consumers who bought Tom’s of Maine toothpaste during the class period (November 21, 2020 through March 6, 2026). The lawsuit was filed to hold the companies accountable for allegedly improper marketing practices and to provide a structured way for many consumers to claim relief rather than pursuing individual suits. Importantly, the notice describes that many claimants may submit without proof using an “average MSRP” approach for one product per household, while those with proof can receive a full refund for up to three products—making the settlement practically significant for everyday purchasers. More broadly, this reflects a recurring pattern in consumer protection litigation: class actions often emerge when product claims may conflict with FDA expectations under federal consumer protection and labeling rules, and similar cases have targeted allegedly misleading “consumer benefit” or compliance-related marketing across food, drugs, and personal care goods. From an industry and regulatory standpoint, the FDA plays a central role in overseeing drug and cosmetic-related claims in addition to how products are marketed, and companies generally must ensure that public-facing advertising and labeling don’t mislead consumers about compliance or substantiation. Settlements like this one also send a signal to the personal care industry that marketing language can face legal scrutiny—especially after regulatory attention—prompting brands to tighten claim review, substantiation, and consistency across packaging, websites, and promotional materials, often through more robust compliance processes. Under the notice, claims must be submitted by July 6, 2026, with the final approval hearing scheduled for September 10, 2026, so eligible consumers can seek compensation through the court-supervised process before the deadlines close.