Hello Kids Toothpaste Sued Over Lead and Mercury — What Parents Need to Know

Hello Products LLC, a subsidiary of Colgate-Palmolive, faces two active federal class action lawsuits alleging its Hello Kids toothpaste line contains dangerous levels of lead and mercury, far exceeding federal safety limits, while being marketed to children as young as two as safe, natural, and “good-for-you.” The allegations center on independent lab testing that found lead levels up to 32 times the EPA’s action threshold and mercury up to nine times the legal limit in drinking water.

The first case, Browne v. Hello Products LLC, Case No. 7:25-cv-05698, was filed July 11, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The second, Barton v. Colgate-Palmolive, Case No. 3:25-cv-02833, was filed October 22, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As of June 2026, neither case has been settled, no class has been certified, and no claim form is open.

Hello Toothpaste Lawsuit Timeline and Updates

January 2025 — Independent Lab Testing Goes Public

Consumer safety organization Lead Safe Mama published a comprehensive chart comparing heavy metal levels across popular toothpaste brands. The data showed two Hello Kids products, the Fresh Watermelon Fluoride-Free Toothpaste and the Dragon Dazzle Fluoride Toothpaste, registered alarming results. Fresh Watermelon tested at 493 parts per billion (ppb) of lead and 19 ppb of mercury. Dragon Dazzle tested at 428.4 ppb of lead and 11.8 ppb of mercury.

For context, the EPA’s action level for lead in drinking water is 15 ppb. The EPA’s maximum contaminant level for mercury is 2 ppb. Every tested Hello Kids variety exceeded both thresholds by multiples. The data spread quickly among parent communities and consumer safety advocates.

July 1, 2025 — Formal Notice Letter Delivered, No Response

Attorneys representing plaintiff Damany Browne delivered a formal notice-of-breach letter to Hello Products LLC. The letter outlined the heavy metal findings and gave the company an opportunity to respond. As of the July 11, 2025 filing date, Hello Products had not replied.

July 11, 2025 — Browne v. Hello Products Filed in New York

Plaintiff Damany Browne, a Brooklyn resident, filed a 35-page class action complaint in the Southern District of New York. Browne alleged he purchased Hello Kids Dragon Dazzle and Fresh Watermelon toothpastes regularly, roughly every two months for three years, from Target and Walmart locations in Brooklyn and Long Island. He said he relied on the product’s marketing, which promised “thoughtfully formulated,” “high quality ingredients” and “safe for all ages,” and would not have bought the products had he known they contained heavy metals.

The complaint names violations of New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350, fraud by omission, breach of warranty, and unjust enrichment. Browne seeks damages of $50 per violation under GBL §349 and $500 per violation under GBL §350, plus punitive and treble damages. The proposed class covers all New York purchasers of any Hello-brand toothpaste within the applicable statute of limitations period.

October 22, 2024 — Barton v. Colgate-Palmolive Filed in California

California residents Nathan Barton and Cynthia Fahrnkopf filed a separate class action in the Southern District of California. Their complaint focused on the full Hello Kids product line, naming varieties including Unicorn Sparkle, Dragon Dazzle, Magical Mermaid, Fresh Watermelon, Smiling Shark, and Wild Strawberry. Independent lab testing commissioned by plaintiffs’ counsel found lead levels ranging from 236 to 658 ppb across all tested flavors.

The California complaint alleges unfair and unlawful business practices, deceptive advertising, and violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. Barton and Fahrnkopf seek restitution, disgorgement, and damages exceeding $5 million, along with an injunction requiring Colgate to disclose heavy metal content on packaging. The proposed class covers California purchasers from the past four years.

April–May 2025 — Hagens Berman Files and Amends Broader Colgate Complaint

Law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro filed a separate class action, Brower v. Colgate-Palmolive, in the Southern District of New York on April 22, 2025. On May 28, 2025, the firm filed an amended complaint after additional testing of multiple Colgate-brand products found elevated levels of lead, mercury, arsenic, and cadmium across the line. The amended complaint broadened the product scope to include Colgate Total Whitening Toothpaste and Colgate Watermelon Burst for Kids alongside the Hello Kids products. One tested product, Colgate Kids Toothpaste with Fluoride, registered 302.1 ppb of lead and 6.9 ppb of mercury. The Hagens Berman case covers New York and Minnesota consumers.

June 2026 — Cases Remain in Early Federal Litigation

As of June 2026, all three related cases remain in early federal litigation. No class has been certified in any proceeding. Colgate-Palmolive has publicly stated its products are safe and comply with all applicable regulatory requirements, arguing that heavy metals such as lead occur naturally in the earth and can appear as trace contaminants in mineral-based ingredients. No FDA recall has been issued. No settlement fund exists. No claim form is open.

What the Lawsuits Allege

The core allegation in both major cases is straightforward: Hello Products knew, or should have known, that its manufacturing process produced toothpaste containing dangerous concentrations of lead and mercury. Instead of disclosing this, the company actively marketed the products as safe, natural, and child-appropriate while concealing the contamination.

The Browne complaint quotes Hello Products’ own marketing language at length. Labels describe the toothpaste as “thoughtfully formulated with high quality ingredients,” “safe for all ages,” “no dyes,” “no artificial flavors,” “no parabens,” “no artificial sweeteners,” and “good-for-you.” The complaint calls this pattern “active concealment” because the affirmative safety claims directly contradicted the actual contents of the tubes.

Plaintiffs also argue the contamination was avoidable. Lead Safe Mama’s testing found that at least five competing brands, including Orajel Kids Training Toothpaste, Dr. Brown’s Fluoride-Free Baby Toothpaste, and Kid’s Spry Tooth Gel, produced children’s toothpaste with lead and mercury at non-detectable levels below 5 ppb. The complaints state plainly: other companies solved this problem. Hello Products did not.

Which Products Are Named

The Science Behind Lead and Mercury Exposure in Children

The FDA, CDC, and WHO all agree on one point: there is no safe level of lead in blood, particularly for children. This is not a precautionary disclaimer. It is the product of decades of neurotoxicology research. Lead does not behave the same way in a child’s body as it does in an adult’s.

Children’s developing brains absorb heavy metals differently. A greater proportion of ingested lead is stored in the nervous system rather than in bones and teeth. It bioaccumulates. The body cannot excrete it fast enough to offset consistent daily exposure. The Browne complaint cites CDC research linking blood lead levels as low as 10 micrograms per deciliter to kidney abnormalities, and higher levels to brain damage, learning disabilities, developmental delays, behavioral problems, and diminished IQ.

Mercury adds a separate risk profile. The complaint draws on EPA and WHO guidance confirming that high mercury exposure can damage the brain, heart, kidneys, lungs, and immune system. Even relatively low chronic exposure has been associated with headaches, limb pain, memory loss, and central nervous system toxicity in workers with occupational exposure. For children, whose nervous systems are still forming, the stakes are higher still.

The route of exposure compounds the risk. Toothpaste is not a product applied to skin and wiped off. It is placed inside the mouth, where sublingual and buccal tissue absorbs substances directly into the bloodstream. Young children, who cannot yet reliably rinse and spit, swallow a meaningful portion of the paste with each brushing. This is not an edge case. It is normal developmental behavior. The Browne complaint explicitly frames toothpaste exposure as daily, cumulative, and absorbed through the most permeable mucous membranes in the body.

What Hello Products and Colgate Say

Hello Products has not publicly addressed the specific contamination allegations in detail. The company did not respond to the formal notice-of-breach letter delivered on July 1, 2025, before the Browne complaint was filed.

Colgate-Palmolive issued a public statement in early 2026 asserting that its products are safe and comply with all applicable regulatory requirements for cosmetic oral care. The company’s core defense: heavy metals such as lead occur naturally in the environment and can appear as trace contaminants in mineral-based ingredients. Colgate argues that trace natural contamination is fundamentally different from a manufacturing defect or deliberate omission, and that its products meet all existing standards.

The plaintiffs counter this directly. The complaints acknowledge that lead can enter products through naturally occurring contamination in raw materials. That is not the dispute. The dispute is whether contamination at these concentrations, 28 to 32 times the EPA action level for lead, required disclosure. And whether a company that markets products with blanket safety claims has an obligation to test for and disclose what is actually in the tube.

Why Hello Products Acquired by Colgate Matters for This Lawsuit

Hello Products LLC was an independent brand before Colgate-Palmolive acquired it in 2020. That acquisition is legally significant. When Colgate absorbed Hello Products, it took on the brand’s manufacturing relationships, quality control systems, and regulatory obligations. The complaints frame Colgate’s corporate oversight as a reason the parent company cannot distance itself from what its subsidiary sold.

The California case names Colgate-Palmolive directly, not just Hello Products LLC. That matters because Colgate’s balance sheet is dramatically larger than Hello Products’ standalone operations. The complaint alleges Hello Products generates tens of millions in annual sales in New York State alone. Colgate’s global revenues run into the billions. The corporate structure, and the question of who bore responsibility for testing and disclosure, sits at the center of what a class certification ruling will need to address.

What Families Who Used These Products Should Do Now

No claim form exists yet. No settlement has been reached. No class has been certified. Despite what some websites claim, there is no open filing window for the Hello toothpaste cases as of June 2026.

What families can do is prepare. The Browne case covers New York purchasers of any Hello-brand toothpaste going back through the applicable statute of limitations period, a minimum of three years from the July 11, 2025 filing date. The Barton case covers California purchasers of named Hello Kids varieties for the past four years. If you purchased these products, save your receipts, purchase confirmations from Amazon, or bank statements showing transactions at Target or Walmart. Documented buyers will be in a stronger position when and if a claim window opens.

Parents concerned about their child’s health should consult a pediatrician. Blood lead testing is widely available and recommended for children who may have had significant exposure. Early intervention is the most effective tool available once exposure has occurred.

Parents navigating this case may also want to follow the Chobani phthalates lawsuit, where a similar pattern of undisclosed chemical contamination in a product marketed as natural prompted a class action. The Home Depot pricing lawsuit raised comparable questions about corporate disclosure obligations to consumers who relied on label representations. And the Burger King Whopper lawsuit shows how courts have treated corporate liability when marketing claims diverge from the product consumers actually receive.

What This Lawsuit Teaches Consumers

The Hello toothpaste cases expose a structural gap in how the United States regulates children’s oral care products. The FDA has established lead limits for candy marketed to small children at 100 ppb. It has established limits for drinking water at 15 ppb. It has not established a specific lead limit for toothpaste. That regulatory gap allowed a product with 493 ppb of lead to sit on the shelf at Target for years, with a label reading “safe for all ages,” without triggering a mandatory recall or enforcement action.

Companies that sell products to parents of young children carry a particular responsibility. Parents are not toxicologists. They read labels. They trust that a brand positioning itself as natural, friendly, and thoughtfully formulated has done the testing to back those claims. The Browne and Barton complaints argue that Hello Products inverted this relationship: it made safety claims while apparently omitting the one piece of information that would have mattered most to every parent in that aisle.

The pattern here is not unique to toothpaste. Baby food, teething rings, and toys have all generated similar litigation as independent testing revealed heavy metal contamination the manufacturers did not disclose. The consistent driver in every case is the same: companies know, or should know, what is in their products. When they choose not to tell consumers, and those consumers are parents buying products for children, the legal system is the only mechanism available to force accountability.

Watch for the class certification rulings in both the Browne and Barton cases. Those decisions will define who is covered, what discovery will look like, and whether these cases move toward settlement or trial. They could also push the FDA toward finally establishing a lead limit for toothpaste, a standard that should have existed before any of these products ever reached a store shelf.