Hello Products LLC faces an escalating series of lawsuits that pull together questions of product safety, child health, and consumer-protection law. Parents and consumer-rights attorneys now challenge how Hello marketed “naturally friendly” toothpaste and rinse products, whether the labels misrepresented sweetness ingredients, and whether independent testing reveals heavy metals at levels that should concern families. Plaintiffs say these products reached millions of households. That scale places unusual pressure on courts to examine both corporate practices and the way oral-care brands justify claims tied to purity, naturalness, and safety. Courts must assess the allegations without prejudice, but the seriousness of the claims drew immediate attention from parents who rely on these products daily.
The lawsuit wave forms part of a broader trend in 2025. Consumers now scrutinize everyday items with intensity once reserved for pharmaceuticals. Market pushback against “greenwashed” or “clean” branding adds another dimension. Plaintiffs and public-health advocates argue that brands relying on natural imagery must also meet stringent safety expectations. That argument resonates strongly in cases involving children, because ingestion risk always runs higher for younger users. Heavy-metal contamination allegations carry weight because even small daily exposures may produce long-term consequences, according to reporting and experts cited in public sources. Hello Products sits at the center of that national conversation.
How the Lawsuit Started
A proposed class action known as Flaherty v. Hello Products LLC surfaced in 2023 in the Northern District of Illinois. The complaint challenges “no artificial sweeteners” labels appearing on several Hello toothpaste products. Plaintiffs argue those labels conflict with ingredient lists that include sugar alcohols such as sorbitol and xylitol. That labeling dispute ignited legal questions about what consumers expect when they read promises tied to “no artificial sweeteners.” Courts often treat these expectations as objective standards, and plaintiffs rely on that principle. Public dockets show that the suit remains active and currently sits in a procedural phase dominated by jurisdictional questions.
New claims appeared in 2025 when Browne v. Hello Products LLC was filed in New York federal court. Plaintiffs cited independent lab testing by Lead Safe Mama, alleging dangerously high levels of lead and mercury in specific Hello Kids toothpastes. Complaints describe the products as appealing to young children due to flavors and packaging. Plaintiffs also argue that children are more likely to swallow toothpaste than adults, increasing exposure risk. Those claims elevated the stakes and brought health-risk discussion into the courtroom.
A separate fluoride-rinse action soon followed. That complaint targets Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse and highlights guidance from health authorities advising against fluoride rinses for children under six. Plaintiffs say Hello marketed the rinse with flavors and packaging that encouraged child use. They argue that the lack of an adequate warning undermined safe use. Lawyers filed these suits while independent testing and public discussions about contamination circulated across national media.
Background of the Case
Hello Products built its brand identity on natural formulations and bright, friendly packaging. The company offered toothpastes and rinses without artificial dyes or preservatives. Those choices resonated with parents searching for gentler oral-care options. Retail chains expanded shelf space for Hello products, and online influencers amplified Hello’s natural positioning. Families with young children often adopted Hello products because they appeared safer than traditional brands. That perception now sits at the core of the plaintiffs’ argument: that marketing formed expectations the products allegedly failed to meet.
Corporate changes add complexity. Hello Products LLC underwent structural shifts by 2024. A federal judge reviewing the Flaherty case described it as a dispute anchored in federalism and corporate-identity issues. Plaintiffs seek to hold Hello accountable despite those corporate developments. The court must determine which entity bears responsibility for ongoing suits. That determination directly affects venue, jurisdiction, and the scope of potential remedies. Those procedural points delay any direct ruling on the truth-in-advertising or safety allegations.
Key Allegations
Plaintiffs challenge Hello on three core fronts. Misleading advertising forms the first. Complaints argue that “no artificial sweeteners” promises appear inconsistent with actual formulations. Plaintiffs say they purchased Hello based on those claims and paid a premium under false impressions. That allegation raises routine but serious consumer-fraud questions.
Heavy-metal contamination allegations form the second major claim. Complaints cite lab tests showing elevated lead and mercury readings in some Hello Kids toothpaste products. Plaintiffs compare those readings with regulatory benchmarks for acceptable contaminant levels in drinking water. They argue that repeated ingestion of contaminated toothpaste could expose children to levels far above what regulators consider safe. Public reporting in 2025 intensified concern around contamination in natural toothpastes, and plaintiffs rely on that context to strengthen their claims.
Warning omissions from the third set of allegations. Plaintiffs highlight health-authority guidance discouraging fluoride rinses for children under six. They say Hello marketed its fluoride rinse with flavors that encouraged swallowing and failed to include warnings that such rinses may not be appropriate for very young children. Complaints argue this omission deprived families of necessary information to make safe choices.
TIMELINE OF THE Hello Toothpaste CASE
Early Complaints and Consumer Signals
Early public concerns surfaced years earlier when consumers challenged charcoal-toothpaste claims. That litigation fought over whitening benefits and enamel safety. Court filings described those products as deceptively marketed. That earlier dispute produced a settlement that plaintiffs now cite to illustrate a pattern in marketing decisions. Heavy-metal concerns then spread across multiple brands in 2025 as public reporting highlighted contamination in natural toothpastes. That reporting generated consumer anxiety and encouraged families to reconsider ingredient transparency in oral-care products.
Company Response
Defendants in Flaherty filed motions centered on jurisdiction and corporate succession. Their filings argued that procedural issues must be resolved before consumer-protection claims can advance. A March 31, 2025 order from Judge Martha M. Pacold emphasized the need to resolve whether the court has authority over the proper entity. That order framed the identity question as central, and plaintiffs must overcome that threshold before litigating the merits. Defendants have not announced any recalls tied to the contamination allegations.
Court Filings and Legal Steps
Flaherty v. Hello Products LLC remains pending with procedural questions unresolved. The court’s 2025 memorandum opinion reviewed corporate documents and asked whether the successor-liability doctrine applies. Browne and related heavy-metals suits remain young. Courts accepted those filings in mid-2025, and early motions are expected. The fluoride-rinse complaint filed in early 2025 sits in a similar initial stage. All cases remain in early phases without substantive rulings on contamination evidence or labeling claims.
Judge Notes or Judicial Signals
Judge Pacold described the Flaherty matter as one centered on federalism and corporate continuity rather than substantive misrepresentation claims. That early judicial signal suggests procedural issues may overshadow or delay more intensive fact-finding. Judges have not yet commented publicly on the heavy-metal evidence because the cases remain too early for evidentiary review.
Government or Regulatory Actions
Regulators have issued no formal recall or enforcement action targeting Hello Products as of mid-2025. Plaintiffs rely instead on independent testing and health authority guidance. Public reporting shows regulatory concern about heavy-metal contamination across the toothpaste market, but government agencies have not announced Hello-specific findings. Plaintiffs cite FDA and ADA recommendations discouraging fluoride rinses for very young children and argue that Hello diverged from those norms.
Settlement Timeline
Hello previously resolved charcoal-toothpaste claims. That settlement became part of the brand’s legal history but does not determine outcomes for newer suits. The 2023 false-advertising dispute and the 2025 heavy-metals suits remain open. No confirmed settlement discussions appear in public filings.
Current Status
All current lawsuits remain active. Courts have yet to reach the merits. Plaintiffs continue to pursue class certification and develop evidentiary strategies. Defendants continue to challenge jurisdiction, corporate identity, and the sufficiency of the allegations. Public attention remains high as contamination reporting circulates in national news.
Health Risks Linked to Lead and Mercury (Verified Only)
Lead exposure poses serious health dangers, especially for children. Public-health authorities consider no level of lead exposure safe for a developing child. Reporters covering the 2025 contamination issue highlighted that chronic low-level exposure can impair neurological development and cause long-term learning deficits. Mercury exposure produces its own risks. Public health sources describe mercury as a potent neurotoxin with cumulative effects. Plaintiffs cite these well-known risks to support arguments that any measurable contamination in toothpaste should be taken seriously because children may swallow toothpaste daily. These dangers form a crucial narrative component for plaintiffs because they illustrate how ingestion differs from surface contact. The toothpaste context adds complexity because routine brushing increases the chance of small daily exposures accumulating over time.
How Product Testing Shapes Contamination Lawsuits
Independent lab testing plays a decisive role in contamination cases. Plaintiffs rely heavily on testing conducted by groups like Lead Safe Mama. Those tests reportedly detected lead and mercury in some Hello Kids toothpaste products. Plaintiffs compare the reported findings to EPA drinking-water limits to illustrate potential danger. Courts evaluate such testing carefully, often focusing on methodology, sample integrity, lab accreditation, and reproducibility. Plaintiffs plan to use testing to support class-wide claims by arguing contamination existed across product batches. Defendants may push back by questioning testing methods or asserting that the results do not reflect typical use. Courts will eventually decide whether plaintiffs’ testing suffices to advance claims past initial stages. Public reporting confirms that contamination allegations arise across multiple natural toothpastes, strengthening plaintiffs’ argument that the risk is systemic rather than isolated.
How Courts Evaluate “No Artificial Sweeteners” Claims
Consumer-protection cases often hinge on how courts interpret labeling phrases. The phrase “no artificial sweeteners” now sits before the court in Flaherty. Plaintiffs argue that ingredients such as sorbitol and xylitol qualify as artificial in the eyes of a reasonable consumer. Defendants may argue those sweeteners derive from natural base materials or fall outside what consumers consider “artificial.” Courts must analyze marketing context, ingredient lists, and consumer expectations. Judges examine whether a typical buyer would believe the label conveys an absence of synthetically produced sweeteners. Public filings indicate the court has not yet addressed these questions because jurisdiction must be resolved first. Once the court reaches the merits, the definition of “artificial” will shape the case’s trajectory.
Final Summary
The Hello toothpaste lawsuits raise a layered mix of safety, marketing, and corporate-structure issues. Plaintiffs challenge contamination findings and dispute the accuracy of marketing language. Parents and public-health experts follow closely because the products target children directly. Courts must first decide procedural questions before weighing evidence. Plaintiffs hope their testing and labeling claims prevail. Defendants emphasize corporate identity, regulatory silence, and procedural defenses. Outcomes may influence the entire oral-care industry.