The tubes were adorable, with sparkling rainbows, pink foil, and a flavor known as “Unicorn Sparkle.” Hello toothpaste seemed like a parent’s fantasy and a child’s delight combined when it was displayed on store shelves. It represented a safer, more delicious departure from conventional brands for many families. In courtrooms, however, that amiable exterior is now being removed.
A single, powerful allegation that Hello Products promoted itself as more natural than it actually is is at the heart of the increasing number of lawsuits. Hello’s pastel packaging and upbeat slogans, which included claims of “no artificial sweeteners” and a fluoride formula that was “safe for kids,” were extremely successful in gaining the trust of consumers.
Those sweetener allegations are specifically contested in the 2023 Flaherty case. Plaintiffs claim that Hello toothpastes contained chemicals like xylitol and sorbitol—hydrogenated substances that could be considered artificial under U.S. labeling standards—despite the packaging claims. According to the lawsuit, Hello’s definition of “natural” avoided scientific definitions in favor of branding.
Deeper issues are brought up by a different class action lawsuit that was spearheaded by Amber Miller in 2025. This one criticizes Hello’s fluoride mouthwash and kids’ toothpaste, claiming that the advertisements failed to sufficiently warn of the dangers fluoride poses to children under the age of six. It’s personal, not simply legalese. After learning her daughter suffered stomach problems she believes were caused by ingesting a fluoride-heavy paste disguised as bubble-gum sweets, one mom said she felt “deeply misled.”
Demand for children’s health products increased dramatically during the epidemic as parents sought for kid-friendly self-care products. Hello effectively rode the wave. Their unicorns weren’t just adorable; they were strategically positioned at eye level and encased in phrases that promoted health and safety. However, attorneys now contend that the glitter might have obscured important safety disclosures.
| Category | Information |
|---|---|
| Company Name | Hello Products LLC |
| Founded | 2009 |
| Founder | Craig Dubitsky |
| Industry | Oral care and personal hygiene |
| Key Products | Toothpaste, mouthwash, kids’ oral care |
| Ownership | Minority stake held by Colgate-Palmolive |
| Legal Focus | Consumer class action litigation |
| Core Allegations | Misleading marketing and labeling |
| Products at Issue | Kids toothpaste, fluoride rinse, charcoal toothpaste |
| Reference | https://www.classaction.org |
Dental groups have often warned against young toddlers consuming fluoride. Fluorosis and gastrointestinal upset have been linked to excessive use, particularly when ingested often. The claims claim that Hello’s marketing encouraged more frequent usage through flavor and aesthetic appeal, but its product labeling made these hazards less apparent.
Hello’s charcoal toothpaste product is also involved in the legal dispute. The charcoal compound, which was promoted as a “naturally whitening” substitute, is currently being investigated for possible enamel degradation. The plaintiffs contend that the business either knew or ought to have known that regular use of abrasive charcoal could harm tooth health, particularly in younger consumers.
Hello Products has defended its position in the face of the accusations, claiming the cases are baseless and requesting that the courts reject them. The brand is still available on drugstore shelves throughout North America, and no formal recalls have been issued as of yet.
However, something much more basic is behind the court filings: a change in how consumers define “natural.” The phrase has changed from being a colloquial description to a marketing tool that is used precisely—and, some contend, more loosely—in recent years. Hello was an example of that trend for many families: a product that felt safe, looked good, and was ultimately more appealing than transparent about its ingredients.
Natural and organic claims in consumer health products have increased dramatically during the last ten years. However, the regulatory meanings of phrases like “safe,” “organic,” and “artificial” haven’t always kept up with the rate of innovation in branding. Lawsuits and public dissatisfaction are made possible by this gap.
Hello developed a brand that resembled a lifestyle option rather than merely a hygiene solution through clever branding. Now, that tactic is being put to the ultimate test.
Consumer advocates are pressing for more precise industry standards as litigation proceeds. Their goal is to replace ambiguous guarantees with quantifiable, legally binding definitions, particularly for goods aimed at children.
