Procter & Gamble has faced several consumer lawsuits over Crest toothpaste, and any current Crest lawsuit search points mainly to three matters: a 2013 class action settlement over Crest Sensitivity Treatment & Protection marketing, an active federal case in Illinois alleging that Kid’s Crest packaging depicts a dangerously oversized amount of toothpaste for young children, and a January 2026 agreement with the Texas Attorney General that forced P&G to redesign its children’s packaging.
The Kid’s Crest Packaging Case
In January 2025, a group of parents filed Gurrola et al v. The Procter & Gamble Company (No. 1:25-cv-00358) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint focuses on the image printed on Kid’s Crest boxes: a toothbrush loaded with a full strip of toothpaste.1Packaging Insights. P&G Toothpaste Lawsuit Packaging
Pediatric dental guidelines from the American Dental Association, the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, and the CDC recommend a grain-of-rice-sized smear for children under three and no more than a pea-sized amount for children ages three to six.2American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Policy on Use of Fluoride The plaintiffs allege the full strip pictured on Kid’s Crest is up to ten times the recommended amount, and that placing the ADA seal alongside that image reinforces the impression the depicted quantity is safe.3Yahoo Finance. Parents Sue Procter & Gamble Swallowing excess fluoride can cause dental fluorosis in developing enamel, and health authorities advise supervising brushing to prevent ingestion.4HealthyChildren.org. FAQ: Fluoride and Children
P&G moved to dismiss, arguing that its labeling gives clear dosage instructions and that federal law preempts state consumer-protection claims because the toothpaste is an FDA-regulated over-the-counter drug.3Yahoo Finance. Parents Sue Procter & Gamble On October 31, 2025, District Judge Jorge Alonso largely denied that motion. He held that preemption did not apply because the plaintiffs challenged marketing imagery rather than the drug labeling itself, and that whether the packaging misleads parents was a valid question for litigation. The court dismissed one narrow claim brought under the Uniform Commercial Code alleging the product was unfit for its intended purpose.5Bloomberg Law. Procter & Gamble Loses Bid to Dismiss Kids Toothpaste Case The case is now in discovery. Plaintiffs’ counsel Michael Connett has said four related lawsuits are pending against various children’s toothpaste companies.
The Texas Attorney General Agreement
On January 8, 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced an agreement with P&G addressing the same packaging concerns. It requires that all marketing and packaging for Crest children’s toothpaste “clearly depict the appropriate amount of toothpaste for children.” P&G began rolling out updated packaging on January 1, 2026, and must maintain compliance with the new standards for five years.6Texas Attorney General. Attorney General Ken Paxton Secures Major Agreement With Crest Toothpaste Manufacturer to Protect Children P&G said the company committed to ensuring its “artwork reflects recommended dosing levels for children.”7Personal Care Insights. Texas Fluoride Toothpaste Packaging
The Crest Sensitivity Settlement
The earlier and largest resolved Crest case is Rossi v. The Procter & Gamble Co. (No. 11-cv-07238), filed in December 2011 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. It alleged P&G falsely advertised Crest Sensitivity Treatment & Protection as delivering relief “within minutes” and stopping “tooth pain, fast,” and cited a Better Business Bureau National Advertising Division finding of “no competent and reliable scientific evidence” for those claims. The complaint also alleged the sensitivity product was essentially the same formula as Crest Pro-Health but sold at roughly a 75 percent premium, $6.99 for 4.2 ounces versus $3.99.8Bursor & Fisher. Crest Sensitivity Toothpaste Lawsuit Moves Forward
The parties settled on behalf of U.S. consumers who bought Crest Sensitivity Treatment & Protection between February 2011 and March 31, 2013. Claimants with proof of purchase could recover a full refund; those without documentation received $4.00. P&G denied liability. Judge Jose L. Linares granted final approval on October 3, 2013.9Courthouse News Service. Settlement Approved for Crest Toothpaste Buyers
The Gum & Enamel Repair Suit
In January 2021, consumers filed Nieves v. The Procter & Gamble Company (No. 7:21-cv-00186) in the Southern District of New York, challenging Crest Gum & Enamel Repair marketing claims like “Clinically Proven to Help Reverse Gingivitis” and “Repairs Weakened Enamel.” The complaint argued that no over-the-counter product can truly repair receding gum tissue.10ClassAction.org. Procter and Gamble Hit With False Advertising Lawsuit Over Gum Enamel Repair Claims for Crest Toothpaste The case was voluntarily dismissed in March 2022, with no public settlement disclosed.11Truth in Advertising. Crest Gum Enamel Repair Toothpaste
Heavy-Metal Testing and What It Doesn’t Cover
Independent testing published by the advocacy group Lead Safe Mama in April 2025 reported detectable lead in roughly 90 percent of 51 toothpaste brands tested, with Crest among the brands included. P&G did not respond to requests for comment on those findings.12The Guardian. Toothpaste Lead Heavy Metals No lawsuit has been filed against P&G over heavy metals in Crest as of mid-2026, though Hello Products and Tom’s of Maine face heavy-metal contamination suits in the Eastern District of New York.13Spectrum Local News. Class Action Against Tom’s of Maine Alleges Presence of Lead and Arsenic in Toothpaste Consumers searching for a Crest heavy-metals class action will not find one at this time.