Tampon Lawsuit: Lead Claims Against P&G and Kimberly-Clark

A wave of tampon lawsuits filed since mid-2024 accuses Procter & Gamble and Kimberly-Clark of selling popular tampons, including Tampax Pearl and U by Kotex, that contain lead at levels the plaintiffs say are unsafe. The cases are proposed class actions brought on behalf of purchasers, not personal-injury suits, and the lead case in California is now in discovery with a settlement conference scheduled for December 2026. Whether the metals in tampons actually harm users remains scientifically unresolved, and the FDA is still studying the question.

What the Lawsuits Actually Claim

The lawsuits do not argue that any specific person was poisoned. They argue that the companies sold a product containing lead without telling buyers, and that consumers overpaid or would not have bought the tampons had they known.

The allegations rest on two things. First, a July 2024 study from the UC Berkeley School of Public Health, which tested 30 tampons across 14 brands and reported detecting 16 metals, including lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury, in every tampon tested.¹ Second, independent lab testing commissioned for the litigation. Against P&G, the complaint cites results of 0.181 micrograms of lead per gram of Tampax Pearl material, which the plaintiffs translate into daily exposure of between 0.729 and 2.36 micrograms depending on tampon size, based on the manufacturer’s recommendation of three tampons in 24 hours.² The largest size, they argue, delivers nearly five times California’s Proposition 65 maximum allowable dose of 0.5 micrograms per day. Against Kimberly-Clark, the numbers are similar: 0.189 micrograms per gram, resulting in estimated daily exposure of 0.927 to 3.358 micrograms.³

The Kimberly-Clark complaint also targets marketing language such as “no harsh ingredients,” “pesticide free,” and “gynecologist tested,” alleging those claims are misleading given the reported lead content.³ The legal theories across the cases include unfair business practices, deceptive advertising, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and breach of implied warranty.⁴

Who Has Been Sued

Three lead-related cases are worth knowing about.

Barton v. The Procter & Gamble Company (No. 3:24-cv-01332) was filed on July 29, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. It targets all sizes of Tampax Pearl and proposes a class of California purchasers over the four years preceding the filing who do not claim personal injury.²

Barton v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation (No. 3:24-cv-01337), filed the next day in the same court, makes parallel claims about U by Kotex Click compact tampons.³ Kimberly-Clark has moved to dismiss, arguing among other things that the lead plaintiff never used its products and relied on testing of items she did not buy.⁵

Otkina et al v. The Procter & Gamble Company (No. 1:26-cv-00773) was filed in January 2026 in the Northern District of Illinois. It also targets Tampax Pearl and alleges violations of Illinois consumer protection and deceptive trade practice statutes.⁶⁴

A separate P&G lawsuit filed in Illinois in May 2024 is worth flagging because it sounds similar but isn’t. That case (No. 1:24-cv-04366) alleges the “Pure Cotton” label misleads buyers because the tampons contain polypropylene, polyester, glycerin, paraffin, and titanium dioxide. It is a labeling case, not a lead case.⁷

Where the California Case Stands Now

Barton v. P&G is the furthest along and has already shaped what these cases can and cannot argue. On February 13, 2025, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel dismissed the fraud-based claims without prejudice, finding the testing allegations too vague. The complaint cited results from an unidentified lab, did not describe the methodology or date of testing, and did not explain why results from super-size tampons applied to the light and regular sizes the plaintiffs actually bought.⁸

Two rulings favored the plaintiffs. Judge Curiel refused to defer the case to the FDA under the primary jurisdiction doctrine, reasoning that the FDA’s investigation would not resolve whether Tampax packaging claims are misleading. He also held that the claims are not disguised Proposition 65 violations, so the plaintiffs did not have to comply with Prop 65’s pre-suit notice requirements.⁸

Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on March 10, 2025. On August 8, 2025, Judge Curiel granted P&G’s second motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, allowing certain claims to move forward. P&G filed its answer later that month, and in December 2025 the judge denied the company’s request to move the case to the Southern District of Ohio. The case is now in discovery. A mandatory settlement conference is scheduled for December 10, 2026, with a final pretrial conference on January 29, 2027.⁹

Is the Health Risk Actually Proven?

No, and this is the weakest link in the plaintiffs’ theory. The Berkeley researchers detected metals in tampon material but did not test whether the metals leach out of the fibers or get absorbed by the body during use. The lead author acknowledged that “it is currently unclear if the metals detected by this study are contributing to any negative health effects” and called for follow-up research.¹

In October 2024, the American College of Medical Toxicology issued a position statement saying there is “no evidence that metals are absorbed efficiently through vaginal mucosa in quantities that would cause clinical effects.” Using the Berkeley study’s median lead concentration and a 9-gram tampon, the ACMT calculated total lead content of about 1.557 micrograms per tampon and concluded that even complete absorption would be a small fraction of the dietary lead intake needed to reach CDC reference levels for concern. The group warned against “unwarranted health concerns” or resorting to chelation therapy, and did not recommend against tampon use.¹⁰

The FDA classifies tampons as medical devices and requires biocompatibility testing before sale. After the Berkeley study, the agency commissioned an independent literature review, published in late December 2024, which analyzed nine existing studies and concluded that “it is unlikely that vaginal tampon use is associated with harmful health outcomes.” The FDA also launched its own bench study to measure whether metals actually leach from tampon materials under conditions closer to normal use. As of early 2025, those results had not been published, and the FDA continues to recommend FDA-cleared tampons as safe.¹¹¹² The plaintiffs’ counter is that cumulative exposure over years matters, that vaginal tissue absorbs more readily than skin, and that there is no known safe level of lead.⁴

Can You Join the Class Right Now?

Not yet. All of the pending cases are proposed class actions, meaning no court has certified a class or approved a settlement. There is nothing to file a claim against at this point. If a class is eventually certified in Barton, it would cover California purchasers of Tampax Pearl within the four years before the July 2024 filing who do not allege personal injury.² These are consumer-protection cases about what was on the box and in the marketing; anyone claiming a specific health injury from tampon use is not part of what these lawsuits are asking a court to decide.

State Laws Already Restricting Tampon Ingredients

There are no federal regulations that specifically ban harmful chemicals in menstrual products or require ingredient disclosure on the label.¹³ A federal bill, the Robin Danielson Menstrual Product and Intimate Care Product Safety Act (H.R. 5957), was introduced by Rep. Grace Meng and would have directed NIH to study chemicals in tampons, but it did not advance out of committee.¹⁴

States have moved. New York signed S1548 into law in December 2025, prohibiting restricted substances including lead, mercury, and talc in menstrual products.¹⁵ Vermont’s ban on PFAS, phthalates, parabens, and heavy metals in menstrual products took effect in January 2026. Colorado and Connecticut have banned intentionally added PFAS in menstrual products, and California, New York, and Nevada require ingredient disclosure on labels.¹³ For a buyer, the practical takeaway is that where you live already affects what can legally be in a tampon on the shelf, well before any of these lawsuits reaches a verdict.

1
UC Berkeley School of Public Health. First Study To Measure Toxic Metals in Tampons Shows Arsenic and Lead
2
ClassAction.org. Tampax Pearl Lawsuit Claims Tampons Contain Dangerous Amounts of Lead
3
ClassAction.org. Barton v. Kimberly-Clark Corporation Complaint
4
AboutLawsuits.com. Tampax Class Action Lawsuit Over Unhealthy Levels of Lead in Tampons
5
Petrie-Flom Center at Harvard Law School. Legal Responses to the Potential Dangers of Menstrual Products
6
Law360. P&G Hit With Suit Over Alleged Lead in Tampax
7
Bloomberg Law. P&G Hit With Deception Suit Over Tampax Pure Cotton Statements
8
Perkins Coie. Barton v. The Procter & Gamble Company, Order on Motion to Dismiss
9
CourtListener. Barton v. The Procter & Gamble Company Docket
10
American College of Medical Toxicology. ACMT Position Statement: No Evidence That Tampons Cause Metal Poisoning
11
MedTech Dive. FDA Review of Tampon Safety and Metals
12
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Biocompatibility and Toxicology Program Research for Medical Devices
13
Environmental Working Group. States Lead the Way to Make Menstrual Products Safer
14
U.S. Congress. H.R. 5957 – Robin Danielson Menstrual Product and Intimate Care Product Safety Act
15
New York State Senate. Senate Bill S1548