Proctor & Gamble Agrees to Stop Deceptive Toothpaste Marketing
Under the terms of an agreement reached last month with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, Proctor & Gamble’s advertising of its children’s toothpaste to children under age six will reflect age-appropriate toothpaste amounts
Paxton said P&G’s use of misleading images of excessive amounts of fluoride toothpaste put children’s health and brain development at risk.
The CDC, the American Dental Association (ADA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and others recommend that children under age three use no more than a “smear” of fluoride toothpaste.
Children ages three to six should use no more than a “pea-sized” amount.
Crest’s marketing materials often show images of a toothbrush with a full strip of toothpaste, implying a full strip is the recommended quantity.
Research has shown that advertising and labeling tactics by toothpaste manufacturers prompt parents to use more toothpaste than is safe, leading children to overconsume toothpaste.
A 2024 study in Nature found that parents tend to overload toothbrushes by a factor of six to seven times the recommended amount. “When parents are teaching their kids the basic habit of brushing their teeth, they shouldn’t have to worry about deceptive marketing endangering their children,” said Paxton.
“Misleading images that show excessive amounts of fluoride toothpaste put children’s health and brain development at risk. This settlement is an important step in ensuring that large corporations like P&G no longer engage in these deceptive practices.”
In May 2024, Paxton launched an investigation into the makers of Colgate and Crest toothpastes for marketing fluoride toothpaste products to parents and kids in ways that are “misleading, deceptive, and dangerous.”
Paxton reached a similar agreement with Colgate-Palmolive in September 2025.
Agreement leaves ‘major loophole,’ attorney says
Paxton’s allegations mirrored those pending in six class action lawsuits filed in January 2025 by attorney Michael Connett, partner at Siri & Glimstad, on behalf of plaintiffs.
Those lawsuits accuse major dental product manufacturers of deceptively marketing products containing fluoride to young children and misleading parents into believing the products are safe for toddlers.
The lawsuits name children’s toothpaste brands Crest and Colgate/Tom’s of Maine; and the children’s mouth rinse brands Act, Colgate/Tom’s of Maine, Firefly and Hello.
Connett commended Paxton for taking action against the companies in a post on X. However, the agreement contains “a major loophole” that will allow the company to “continue deceiving parents of young children,” Connett said.
He said the agreement forbids the company from showing full strips of toothpaste, but still allows them to show “pea-sized” images of fluoride toothpaste for children under age three.
“This is much more fluoride than is currently recommended, even by pro-fluoride organizations such as the ADA, AAP and AAPD,” the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, he said.
Class action lawsuits move forward
The class action lawsuits addressed a wider range of deceptive marketing practices by fluoride toothpaste and mouthwash manufacturers targeting children.
They also allege the companies design their product labels with candy and fruit juice flavors and images and cartoon characters to appeal to young children, often misleading them to think the products are meant to be consumed as food. This violates the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) and several state consumer fraud statutes, according to the lawsuits.
In all the class actions, defendants filed motions to dismiss the case. In the two rulings issued on those motions so far — against P&G and Firefly — the courts denied the motions. The cases are proceeding to discovery.
P&G asked for permission to immediately appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, but the court also denied that request.
“We are thus one step closer to these companies being held accountable, for the first time in their history, for the deceptive marketing they have used to sell fluoride products to the parents of young children,” Connett said.
Soon after the court denied Firefly’s motion to dismiss, its makers stopped selling one of its most popular fluoride rinses, Buzz Lightyear. Its L.O.L, Surprise! version remains available.
See more here childrenshealthdefense.org
Header image: Therapy Centres