Esquibel v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.
1:23-cv-00742
| S.D.N.Y. | Jun 27, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class, sued Colgate-Palmolive and its subsidiary Tom’s of Maine, alleging that Tom’s Wicked Fresh! Mouthwash contains harmful PFAS chemicals.
- Plaintiffs allege the products were marketed as “natural,” and they paid a price premium based on these representations.
- The court previously dismissed the case for lack of standing because initial PFAS testing did not include bottles actually purchased by plaintiffs; plaintiffs then amended the complaint with new testing.
- New testing on bottles purchased by three of the named plaintiffs found detectable PFAS; three other plaintiffs did not test their own purchased bottles.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6), and 9(b), and invoked the primary jurisdiction doctrine, arguing the FDA was the appropriate forum.
- The court addressed standing, adequacy of fraud allegations, the plausibility of claims under California and Illinois law, and whether the case should be stayed or redirected to the FDA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III Standing (for damages) | Tests showed PFAS in three plaintiffs’ purchased bottles; systemic contamination claims for others | No uniform contamination; insufficient linkage of batch to tested bottles | Standing granted for 3 plaintiffs with tested bottles; denied for others |
| Fraud & Misrepresentation Pleading (9(b)) | Sufficient facts: product labeled “natural,” price premium, intent alleged | Lacked specifics on test method, reliance, and advertisements | Pleading standard met; claims survive at this stage |
| State Statutes—California & Illinois Claims | Labeling was deceptive; reasonable consumers misled by “natural” language | No reasonable deception; statute preclusion; FDCA preempts some claims | Claims under FAL, CLRA, UCL (except FDCA-based); ICFA claims allowed |
| Primary Jurisdiction | Issue is misleading labeling, not PFAS risk; courts can decide deception claims | FDA must determine safety and guidance on “natural” labeling | Stay/transfer to FDA denied; court retains jurisdiction on deceptive labeling issues |
| Common Law Claims (Fraud, Unjust Enrichment) | Defendants knowingly misled; price premium; equity/fairness | No fiduciary/confidential relationship; unjust enrichment duplicative in NY | Fraud claims survive; constructive fraud dismissed; unjust enrichment only for CA/IL claims |
| Claims against Colgate (parent liability) | Colgate had pervasive control, involvement in marketing as “natural” | Colgate’s parent status not enough, must pierce corporate veil under Maine law | Sufficient allegations at pleadings; claims against Colgate proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330 (2016) (Sets Article III standing framework: injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Elaborates on injury in fact requirement)
- Nat’l Res. Def. Council v. Johnson, 461 F.3d 164 (2d Cir. 2006) (Pleading rule for factual allegations on jurisdiction)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (Plausibility standard for stating a claim)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Plausibility requirement in Rule 12(b)(6) motions)
- Nicosia v. Amazon.com, Inc., 834 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2016) (Past harm and standing for injunctions)
- Berni v. Barilla, S.p.A., 964 F.3d 141 (2d Cir. 2020) (Standing for injunctive relief in product labeling cases)
- Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996) (Class action standing requirement for named plaintiffs)