The tampon lawsuits against Procter & Gamble are class actions alleging that Tampax products contain undisclosed lead and other heavy metals, and that P&G’s safety and quality marketing misled consumers who would not have bought the tampons, or would have paid less, had they known. Three separate cases are pending in California, Ohio, and Illinois. None has settled, none has reached trial, and no class has yet been certified. The California case is furthest along, with a mandatory settlement conference scheduled for December 10, 2026, and a final pretrial conference on January 29, 2027.1CourtListener. Barton v. The Procter Gamble Company
What the Lawsuits Actually Claim
The complaints trace back to a July 2024 peer-reviewed study in Environment International, in which UC Berkeley researchers tested 30 tampons from 14 brands for 16 metals. Every tampon tested positive for all 16, with mean lead concentration of 120 parts per billion.2UC Berkeley School of Public Health. First Study to Measure Toxic Metals in Tampons Shows Arsenic and Lead Lead concentrations were higher in non-organic tampons; arsenic was higher in organic ones.3Chemical & Engineering News. Researchers Found Arsenic and Lead in Tampons
Building on those findings, plaintiffs allege P&G knew or should have known about lead in its tampons and never disclosed it on packaging, labeling, or in marketing. They point to specific Tampax claims they say created a false impression of safety, including “#1 U.S. Gynecologist Recommended Tampon Brand,” “Clinically Tested Gentle to Skin,” and various “free of” statements about dyes, perfumes, and elemental chlorine bleaching.4ClassAction.org. Barton v. The Procter and Gamble Company Complaint The theory of harm is largely economic: buyers paid a premium for a product marketed as safe and high quality, and either overpaid or would not have purchased at all had they known about the lead.5AboutLawsuits.com. Tampax Pearl Lawsuit Claims Toxic Lead in Tampons Enters Bloodstream
The Three P&G Cases and Where They Stand
Barton v. Procter & Gamble (Southern District of California)
Filed July 29, 2024, by plaintiff Allison Barton, this case is the furthest along. Barton alleges that while lead content per gram of tampon (0.181 micrograms) falls below California’s Proposition 65 threshold, daily use of multiple tampons pushes total exposure to between 0.729 and 2.36 micrograms, above the Prop 65 maximum allowable dose of 0.5 micrograms per day.6ClassAction.org. Tampax Pearl Lawsuit Claims Tampons Contain Dangerous Amounts of Lead
In August 2025, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel denied P&G’s motion to dismiss, finding plaintiffs had plausibly alleged the presence of lead and that whether the levels were “unsafe” involved factual disputes that could not be resolved at the pleading stage.7CaseMine. Barton v. The Procter & Gamble Company One narrow claim under the “unfair” prong of California’s Unfair Competition Law was dismissed as too vague; claims under the “unlawful” and “fraudulent” prongs survived.8Top Class Actions. Procter Gamble Must Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Lead in Tampons The case is now in discovery. In March 2026, the parties jointly asked to extend the class certification briefing deadline.9PACER Monitor. Barton v. The Procter & Gamble Company – Motion to Extend Deadline
Sanchez v. Procter & Gamble (Southern District of Ohio)
Filed November 19, 2025, by Ciji Sanchez and eight co-plaintiffs, this complaint alleges that independent testing found lead in the portion of the tampon inserted vaginally at levels “significantly higher” than the EPA’s action level for lead in drinking water. It also notes that P&G markets other tampon lines as lead-free, which plaintiffs say shows the company was aware of the contamination.10Top Class Actions. P&G Sued Over Alleged Lead Contamination in Tampax Tampons The proposed class covers anyone in the United States who purchased Tampax tampons during the applicable statute of limitations period. The complaint seeks class certification, damages, legal fees, and a jury trial.
Otkina v. Procter & Gamble (Northern District of Illinois)
Filed in January 2026 by Anna Otkina and several co-plaintiffs, this case tracks the same theory: undisclosed lead and other heavy metals, and internal testing that allegedly gave P&G the means to know.11AboutLawsuits.com. Tampax Class Action Lawsuit Claims Tampons Contain Unhealthy Levels of Lead The proposed nationwide class excludes California, where Barton is already pending.12Top Class Actions. P&G Hit With Another Class Action Over Alleged Lead in Tampax Pearl Tampons
How Procter & Gamble Is Defending Itself
P&G has argued that plaintiffs never tested the specific products they personally bought and cannot show their tampons came from the same production lots as those in the Berkeley study. The company also argues plaintiffs have not plausibly shown that the lead levels pose an actual health risk.7CaseMine. Barton v. The Procter & Gamble Company
On the labeling claims, P&G says its statements are factually true: the tampons are free of added perfume, free of dyes, and free of elemental chlorine bleaching. The company invoked the Federal Trade Commission’s “Green Guides,” which treat “free-of” claims as non-deceptive when the substance is not intentionally added and does not cause material harm. Judge Curiel rejected that argument, ruling that the Green Guides govern environmental marketing claims and are irrelevant to health-related labeling disputes, and that whether the packaging would mislead a reasonable consumer is a factual question inappropriate for a motion to dismiss.7CaseMine. Barton v. The Procter & Gamble Company
Can Consumers Join Yet?
Not on a class-wide basis. No court has certified a class in any of the three cases. Until certification, the lawsuits are formally on behalf of the named plaintiffs, and how broad the classes will be, or whether they will be certified at all, remains open. The Barton litigation covers California purchasers; Otkina proposes a nationwide class excluding California; Sanchez proposes a U.S.-wide class.
The Scientific Dispute Underneath the Cases
The Berkeley study measured what metals are present in tampons but did not test whether those metals leach out during use or enter the bloodstream. Its authors called for further research on that question.2UC Berkeley School of Public Health. First Study to Measure Toxic Metals in Tampons Shows Arsenic and Lead
The American College of Medical Toxicology issued an October 2024 position statement cautioning against alarm. The group calculated that even if the entire lead content of a tampon were completely absorbed, the dose would represent a small fraction of the dietary lead intake associated with reaching CDC blood lead reference levels. The ACMT also noted that vaginal mucosal bioavailability for metals is lower than that of oral ingestion, and that metal ions are less efficiently absorbed through vaginal tissue than lipophilic substances. It concluded that the Berkeley study “does not provide any information on bioavailability via the intra-vaginal route or health effects.”13American College of Medical Toxicology. ACMT Position Statement: No Evidence That Tampons Cause Metal Poisoning
Plaintiffs counter that lead is a known neurotoxin with no safe level of exposure and that the vaginal route bypasses the body’s normal detoxification pathways, potentially making even small amounts more dangerous than equivalent oral exposure.4ClassAction.org. Barton v. The Procter and Gamble Company Complaint This disagreement is likely to be a central battlefield if the cases reach trial.
The FDA Investigation That Could Reshape the Cases
The FDA regulates tampons as medical devices and requires biocompatibility and safety testing before market authorization.14U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Facts About Tampons and How to Use Them Safely In September 2024, following the Berkeley study and pressure from members of Congress, the agency announced an independent literature review and an internal bench laboratory study to determine whether metals leach out under normal use conditions and whether they are absorbed.15ABC7 News. Lead, Arsenic and Other Heavy Metals in Tampons Prompt FDA Investigation
The literature review, completed in late 2024, examined nine existing studies on contaminants in menstrual products and found methodological limitations; none of the reviewed studies addressed whether contaminants are actually released from tampons or absorbed by the body. Based on that review, the FDA concluded there was no evidence of safety concerns and maintained that FDA-cleared tampons are safe to use. The agency’s own laboratory study, which would provide more definitive answers on leaching and absorption, remained ongoing as of mid-2026, with no published or peer-reviewed results.16U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Biocompatibility and Toxicology Program – Research for Medical Devices
Separately, states have moved to require disclosure or restrict what can be sold. California’s SB 754, signed October 11, 2025, requires manufacturers of disposable tampons and pads to monitor and report concentrations of lead, arsenic, and cadmium to the state Department of Toxic Substance Control beginning December 31, 2026.17California State Senate. California Legislature Passes SB 754 Monitoring Lead Levels in Tampons and Pads New York’s S.1548/A.1502, which prohibits the sale of menstrual products containing lead, mercury, formaldehyde, and various phthalates, takes effect December 19, 2026.18NRDC. Advocates Applaud NYS New Nation-Leading Law Banning Toxics in Period Products
What to Watch Next
The near-term markers are the Barton class certification briefing, the December 2026 settlement conference, and the January 2027 pretrial conference in California. The Ohio and Illinois cases are at earlier stages and will likely see their own motion-to-dismiss rulings before anything else. The FDA’s pending bench study is the wild card: findings that metals do not meaningfully leach from tampons during use would strengthen P&G’s defense, while findings to the contrary would give plaintiffs significant new ammunition. For now, the FDA continues to say cleared tampons are safe while acknowledging the absorption question has not been definitively answered.