NEW YORK (Legal Newsline) - Procter & Gamble has earned a win in a proposed class action lawsuit that alleged dangerous chemicals are in its Oral-B Glide Dental Floss.
New York federal judge Nelson Roman on Sept. 22 tossed the case but allowed plaintiff Alan Dalewitz time to file an amended complaint. His case is part of a wave of consumer litigation over chemicals known as PFAS, which are found in firefighting foam and consumer products and have made their way into the bloodstreams of virtually every American.
Lawsuits blame the chemicals for a variety of health problems, some of which were linked by a health study that was part of a settlement with DuPont. But others say the science on how PFAS affect the human body is incomplete.
They have been dubbed "forever chemicals" because of the human body's inability to rid itself of them. Lawyers have jumped on the chance to sue dozens of companies, with some scoring contingency-fee contracts with government officials and others pursuing consumer protection claims.
In the Oral-B case, P&G fought allegations it was wrong to market its products as pro-health when they actually contained PFAS. Judge Roman said attorneys at Richman Law & Policy and Burson & Fisher failed to plausibly claim the floss contains PFAS or harms consumers.
"Plaintiff relies on the Boronow Study, which identified two specific PFAS chemicals (PTFE and PFHxS) 'as being associated with Oral-B Glide products,'" Roman wrote.
"The Study, however, screened the Product for fluorine, which serves as a proxy for the presence of PFAS. As such, the Study concludes that 'additional data' is required to 'verify' 'that flossing with PTFE-based dental floss could contribute to an individual's body burden of PFAS,' for example by 'demonstrating the potential for PFASs in floss to migrate into saliva or onto hands.'"
Plaintiff lawyers asked the court to infer the floss "likely" contains PFAS and that the types "likely" cause adverse health outcomes, Roman said.
He also said a study cited by the plaintiff lawyers was unsubstantiated, "rendering key allegations implausible."
"In any amended pleadings, Plaintiff must include further information regarding this test..." he wrote, pointing to methodology and who conducted the test.