Corporate Misconduct Accountability Project
Hello Products LLC · Class Action Lawsuit
Hello Products Marketed Dangerous Fluoride Rinse to Toddlers
Hello Products LLC allegedly marketed a candy-flavored fluoride mouthrinse to preschoolers under age six despite FDA warnings that the product is too dangerous for young children to use, putting millions of kids at risk of poisoning and permanent tooth damage.
CRITICAL SEVERITY
TL;DR
Hello Products sold a kids fluoride mouthrinse in candy flavors like Wild Strawberry and Unicorn Splash to children under six, even though the FDA, CDC, WHO, and American Dental Association all say fluoride mouthrinse is too dangerous for this age group. The product contains enough fluoride to cause severe poisoning or death if a toddler swallows just over half the bottle. Parents bought the product believing it was specially formulated for young children, when in reality it violated federal labeling laws and put kids at serious risk.
This case shows how corporations exploit gaps in enforcement to market dangerous products directly to the most vulnerable consumers.
68%
U.S. children with dental fluorosis due to excess fluoride exposure
4,000+
Annual poison control reports for fluoride mouthrinse ingestion by children
Under 6
Age group FDA says should never use fluoride mouthrinse
The Allegations: A Breakdown
Core Allegations
What they did · 8 points
| 01 | Hello Products marketed its Kids Fluoride Rinse in candy flavors like Wild Strawberry and Unicorn Splash bubble gum directly to preschoolers under age six, the exact demographic that FDA explicitly says should never use fluoride mouthrinse without dentist supervision. | high |
| 02 | The company violated federal law by failing to prominently display the required FDA warning statement on the front label. The regulation mandates that all fluoride mouthrinses must show IMPORTANT: Read directions for proper use on the principal display panel, but Hello omitted this entirely. | high |
| 03 | Hello designed packaging with playful language claiming the rinse tastes so delicious they’ll rush to rinse and tastes like rainbows and sunshine, actively encouraging children to swallow a product that can cause severe poisoning if ingested. | high |
| 04 | The product contains the same fluoride concentration as adult mouthrinse, making it even more dangerous for young children whose underdeveloped swallowing reflexes mean they will inevitably ingest large amounts of the candy-flavored liquid. | high |
| 05 | Hello buried required safety warnings in tiny, blurry text on the back label while giving prominent space to marketing puffery about natural ingredients and vegan formulation, deliberately obscuring the serious health risks. | high |
| 06 | The company displayed an ADA seal of approval on the Wild Strawberry Rinse without disclosing that the ADA only approved the product for children six and older, misleading parents into thinking it was safe for toddlers. | medium |
| 07 | Customer reviews posted on Hello’s own website show parents routinely gave this mouthrinse to children as young as two years old, proving the company knew its marketing successfully targeted preschoolers and did nothing to stop it. | high |
| 08 | A toddler who swallows just 55% of one bottle of Hello Rinse will ingest enough fluoride to exceed the Probable Toxic Dose, triggering the need for immediate emergency hospitalization due to risk of death. | critical |
Regulatory Failures
How the system failed · 6 points
| 01 | The FDA published clear regulations in 1995 stating fluoride mouthrinses are not indicated for use in children under six years of age on an over-the-counter basis, yet Hello Products openly marketed to this exact age group for years without enforcement action. | high |
| 02 | Federal regulations require that warnings and directions receive prominent placement with conspicuousness compared to other label content, but Hello used large bold font for marketing claims while printing safety information in small faint text that consumers could barely read. | high |
| 03 | The FDA specifically warned that consumers might overuse or misuse fluoride rinse based on familiarity with harmless cosmetic mouthrinse, yet allowed Hello to market a dangerous drug product using the same playful branding as cosmetic products. | medium |
| 04 | Multiple health agencies including CDC, WHO, American Dental Association, and American Academy of Pediatrics all published guidance against fluoride mouthrinse use in children under six, but no coordinated enforcement mechanism existed to stop Hello from violating this consensus. | medium |
| 05 | The FDA stated in 1960 that careful instruction must be provided if fluoride mouthrinses are to be used daily, yet Hello’s labeling encouraged rushing to rinse with magical delicious flavors rather than emphasizing caution. | medium |
| 06 | Regulatory agencies relied on post-market consumer complaints to identify violations rather than proactive monitoring, allowing Hello to sell potentially lethal products to toddlers for years before this lawsuit brought attention to the violations. | high |
Profit Over People
The financial incentive behind the harm · 6 points
| 01 | Hello Products identified an untapped market for toddler fluoride products and exploited it by adding candy flavors and kid-friendly branding, calculating that profits from capturing this demographic would exceed any potential legal liability. | high |
| 02 | The company is owned by Colgate-Palmolive, a multinational giant with decades of regulatory experience that certainly knew fluoride mouthrinse is contraindicated for children under six but allowed its subsidiary to market the product anyway. | high |
| 03 | Hello positioned itself in the premium naturally friendly oral care segment, charging higher prices by marketing to parents who want clean vegan products for their children, all while concealing that the core ingredient posed serious health risks. | medium |
| 04 | The brand deliberately used misleading descriptors like thoughtfully formulated and no brainer to create a false impression of safety, knowing that busy parents would trust these claims rather than reading fine print warnings. | high |
| 05 | By treating potential lawsuits as just another cost of doing business, Hello could continue selling the product for years while building brand loyalty and market share, betting that eventual legal settlements would cost less than the revenue generated. | medium |
| 06 | The company’s marketing strategy specifically targeted the aspirational parent demographic willing to pay premium prices for products marketed as safer and more natural, exploiting parental desire to protect their children while actually exposing them to greater harm. | high |
Public Health and Safety
The human cost · 8 points
| 01 | Young children who swallow fluoride mouthrinse face acute toxicity symptoms including nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and stomach pain that parents often mistake for stomach flu, meaning many poisoning incidents go unreported and untreated. | high |
| 02 | Children who repeatedly use fluoride mouthrinse during their preschool years develop dental fluorosis, a permanent condition causing mottled discoloration, brown or gray patches, and pitted tooth enamel that can never be reversed and often requires expensive cosmetic treatment. | high |
| 03 | Research shows that 68% of U.S. children now have some form of dental fluorosis, a rate that has tripled since manufacturers began marketing candy-flavored fluoride products in the 1980s, and experts identify these products as a key driver of the epidemic. | high |
| 04 | A two-year-old child who swallows just one 10 mL dose of Hello Rinse will ingest fluoride at more than twice the EPA reference dose, putting them at immediate risk of severe dental fluorosis that will permanently disfigure their adult teeth. | critical |
| 05 | The National Toxicology Program concluded in August 2024 that excess fluoride exposure is consistently associated with reduced IQ in children, and identified mouthrinse as a source that may cause kids to exceed safe fluoride intake levels. | high |
| 06 | Studies show that children with dental fluorosis suffer negative psychosocial impacts including being teased by peers, reluctance to smile, lack of confidence, and parental dissatisfaction with their child’s appearance, creating lasting emotional harm. | medium |
| 07 | Poison control centers receive over 4,000 reports annually for fluoride mouthrinse ingestion by young children, but experts recognize this represents only a fraction of actual incidents because many parents never realize the connection between their child’s symptoms and the product. | high |
| 08 | As little as 3 milligrams of fluoride in one sitting causes widespread erosions of the gastric mucosa in adult stomachs, and children face this harm at even lower doses due to smaller body size and stomach capacity, yet a single dose of Hello Rinse contains 2.3 milligrams. | critical |
Community Impact
Who bears the burden · 5 points
| 01 | Lower-income families who rely on affordable mass-market oral care products face disproportionate harm because they have less access to dentists who might warn them about fluoride mouthrinse dangers, and less ability to pay for cosmetic treatment if their child develops fluorosis. | medium |
| 02 | Spikes in pediatric fluoride ingestion calls to poison control centers strain local health resources and emergency rooms, particularly in underserved communities where families cannot afford private pediatric care. | medium |
| 03 | Parents who discover they unknowingly harmed their child by using this product experience severe guilt and stress, psychological burdens that fall entirely on families rather than the corporation that deceived them. | medium |
| 04 | Children with visible dental fluorosis may face social stigma and teasing that affects their educational experience and social development, costs that persist for decades while the company faces only temporary legal consequences. | medium |
| 05 | Working parents with limited time to research products must rely on the assumption that items sold in the children’s oral care section are safe for young kids, an assumption that Hello’s deceptive marketing deliberately exploited. | high |
Corporate Accountability Failures
The system that enables this · 7 points
| 01 | Hello Products violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by selling a misbranded drug with false and misleading labeling, yet continued selling the product for years without any enforcement action halting distribution. | high |
| 02 | The company ignored the FDA’s explicit requirement that fluoride mouthrinse labels must clearly instruct consumers to read the directions, instead burying instructions in fine print while prominently displaying marketing puffery. | high |
| 03 | Federal regulations state that insufficient label space due to promotional content that is not FDA-required constitutes a labeling violation, but Hello prioritized its naturally friendly branding over legally mandated warnings. | medium |
| 04 | The corporate parent Colgate-Palmolive allowed its Hello subsidiary to operate with labeling that clearly violated regulations the parent company has followed for decades on its own fluoride products, showing deliberate organizational separation to shield liability. | high |
| 05 | Courts have repeatedly held that companies cannot cure false front-label representations by including correct information in back-label fine print, yet Hello structured its entire labeling strategy around this illegal approach. | medium |
| 06 | The FDA stated in 1997 that using candy-like flavors in kids fluoride products is misleading because it sends a common signal that the product is intended to be consumed as if it were food, yet allowed Hello to market bubble gum and strawberry flavors for years. | high |
| 07 | Scientific consensus since 1992 has held that flavors that may increase ingestion of fluoridated products by young children should be strongly discouraged, but no enforcement mechanism prevented Hello from doing exactly that. | medium |
The PR Machine
How corporations deflect accountability · 4 points
| 01 | Hello Products built its brand identity around a naturally friendly ethos emphasizing vegan ingredients, no dyes, and no artificial sweeteners, creating a health halo that distracted parents from the serious fluoride toxicity risks. | medium |
| 02 | The company’s marketing repeatedly used the phrase no brainer in connection with safety claims, actively discouraging parents from thinking critically about whether the product was appropriate for young children. | medium |
| 03 | When faced with accountability, corporations typically deploy a standard playbook including blaming consumers for not reading instructions, highlighting unrelated good deeds, making cosmetic label changes, and settling quietly with non-disclosure agreements. | medium |
| 04 | Corporate social responsibility rhetoric allows companies like Hello to claim they are thoughtfully formulated while systematically marketing dangerous products to the exact demographic that health agencies say should never use them. | high |
The Bottom Line
What this case reveals · 6 points
| 01 | This lawsuit demonstrates how corporations exploit regulatory gaps by marketing adult-strength fluoride products to toddlers through candy flavoring and playful branding, calculating that profits will exceed any eventual legal liability. | high |
| 02 | The case reveals that even when multiple health agencies publish explicit guidance against a practice, companies can violate that consensus for years if enforcement remains reactive rather than proactive. | high |
| 03 | Parents purchased Hello Rinse believing it was specially formulated to be safe for young children based on packaging that violated federal labeling requirements, proving that current regulations are meaningless without consistent enforcement. | high |
| 04 | The pattern of predatory marketing to vulnerable populations is not a bug in the system but a feature of neoliberal capitalism that rewards growth and shareholder returns above public health and child safety. | high |
| 05 | Meaningful reform requires stricter enforcement of existing regulations, substantially higher penalties for violations involving children’s products, potential bans on candy flavoring in high-fluoride products, mandatory child-resistant packaging, and transparent front-label warnings. | medium |
| 06 | Until the cost of harming children exceeds the revenue gained from deceptive marketing, corporations will continue to treat compliance violations as an acceptable business expense, making systemic change essential to protect public health. | high |
Timeline of Events
1960
Scientists establish that fluoride mouthrinses should not be employed in children below school age
1985
FDA publishes tentative final monograph warning that children under six have not developed control of swallowing reflex
1992
Journal of Public Health Dentistry publishes consensus that flavors increasing ingestion of fluoridated products by young children should be strongly discouraged
October 1995
FDA issues final monograph stating fluoride dental rinses are not indicated for use in children under six years of age on an over-the-counter basis
1997
Journal of Public Health Dentistry publishes review stating use of flavored fluoride products increases possibility a child will ingest a toxic dose
2020
American Academy of Pediatrics states fluoride mouth rinses should not be used until a child turns six and only if the child can reliably swish and spit
2021
Plaintiff Josh Cook begins purchasing Hello Rinse for his three-year-old daughter in Illinois
2021
Plaintiff Marina Vasilyeva begins purchasing Hello Rinse for her three-year-old daughter in New York
2022
Plaintiff Amber Miller begins purchasing Hello Rinse for her two-year-old daughter in California
August 2024
National Toxicology Program concludes excess fluoride exposure is consistently associated with reduced IQ in children
September 2024
Federal district court rules that adding fluoride to drinking water poses an unreasonable risk of reduced IQ
January 2025
NTP scientists publish meta-analysis in JAMA Pediatrics finding inverse association between fluoride and children’s IQ scores
January 13, 2025
Class action lawsuit filed against Hello Products LLC in U.S. District Court for Southern District of California
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
FDA on dangers for young children
allegations
“Children under 6 years of age have not developed control of their swallowing reflex and are not able to hold the fluoride preparation in their mouth and then expectorate properly.”
💡 This shows FDA knew young children would inevitably swallow fluoride mouthrinse, making Hello’s candy-flavored marketing particularly dangerous.
QUOTE 2
Hello’s deceptive marketing language
allegations
“tastes so delicious they’ll rush to rinse”
💡 The company actively encouraged children to use more of a product that health agencies say they should never use at all.
QUOTE 3
FDA warning about consumer confusion
regulatory
“based upon familiarity with cosmetic mouthrinse use, a consumer might overuse and/or misuse an OTC fluoride rinse”
💡 FDA explicitly warned that consumers would not understand the difference between harmless cosmetic rinse and dangerous fluoride rinse, exactly the confusion Hello exploited.
QUOTE 4
Required prominence of warnings
allegations
“the following statement shall be prominently placed on the principal display panel: IMPORTANT: Read directions for proper use.”
💡 Hello violated this mandatory requirement by completely omitting the statement from its front label.
QUOTE 5
Candy flavoring is misleading to children
profit
“pictures of fruit with flavoring to match on kids fluoride products is misleading because pictures of fruit send a common signal to a child that the product is intended to be consumed as if it were food”
💡 Research shows that marketing fluoride products with fruit and candy imagery causes children to swallow them like food.
QUOTE 6
Risk of severe poisoning
health
“if it is even suspected that 5.0 mg/kg or more of fluoride has been ingested, then it should be assumed that an emergency exists. Appropriate therapeutic measures and hospitalization should be instituted immediately.”
💡 A two-year-old who drinks 55% of one bottle of Hello Rinse will exceed this probable toxic dose requiring immediate hospitalization.
QUOTE 7
No benefits proven for young children
health
“scientists have never even attempted to study the potential effect of fluoride mouthrinses on tooth decay in this age group. Therefore, there are no demonstrated benefits from the use of fluoride mouthrinses for preschool children”
💡 The product offers zero proven benefit to the age group Hello marketed it to, only risks.
QUOTE 8
Permanent disfigurement from fluorosis
health
“dental fluorosis is a permanent, mottled discoloration of the teeth that is caused by ingesting too much fluoride while the teeth are still developing”
💡 Children who use this product during their preschool years may suffer visible tooth damage that lasts their entire lives.
QUOTE 9
Epidemic of fluorosis in children
health
“In 1986-87, approximately 23% of U.S. children had fluorosis. This rate tripled to a staggering 68% of U.S children by 2015-16.”
💡 The fluorosis epidemic tripled after manufacturers began marketing candy-flavored fluoride products to children.
QUOTE 10
National Toxicology Program IQ findings
health
“In August of 2024, the prestigious National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluded that excess fluoride exposure is associated with IQ loss in children”
💡 Recent government research confirms fluoride harms brain development in children, making exposure from mouthrinse even more concerning.
QUOTE 11
Customer reviews prove targeting of toddlers
allegations
“My young children (6 yr, 4 yr and 2 yr) looked forward to using it every day after brushing. It tastes good, they like to keep it in their mouth for the requisite rinse time.”
💡 Reviews on Hello’s own website show parents routinely gave this to two-year-olds, proving the company knew its marketing successfully targeted preschoolers.
QUOTE 12
Court ruling on front vs back label
accountability
“We disagree with the district court that reasonable consumers should be expected to look beyond misleading representations on the front of the box to discover the truth from the ingredient list in small print on the side of the box.”
💡 Courts have ruled that burying truth in fine print does not cure false front-label claims, the exact illegal tactic Hello used.
QUOTE 13
FDA purpose of ingredient lists
accountability
“We do not think that the FDA requires an ingredient list so that manufacturers can mislead consumers and then rely on the ingredient list to correct those misinterpretations and provide a shield for liability for the deception.”
💡 This quote shows that Hello cannot defend itself by pointing to back-label warnings when the front label is deliberately misleading.
QUOTE 14
Symptoms parents mistake for stomach flu
health
“Parents or caregivers may not notice the symptoms associated with mild fluoride toxicity or may attribute them to colic or gastroenteritis, particularly if they did not see the child ingest fluoride.”
💡 Many fluoride poisoning incidents go unreported because parents think their child just has the flu, hiding the true scale of harm.
QUOTE 15
Psychosocial harm from fluorosis
health
“The key finding to emerge from this study was the negative psychosocial impact reported by some children with untreated enamel defects. Over half of the children stated that they had been subject to unkind remarks about their teeth by their peers. A number of children described a reluctance to smile or a lack of confidence.”
💡 Children with fluorosis suffer bullying and emotional harm that affects their development, costs that fall entirely on families rather than Hello.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is fluoride mouthrinse dangerous for children under six?
Children under six have not developed the swallowing reflex needed to spit out mouthrinse. They will inevitably swallow large amounts. Ingesting fluoride can cause acute poisoning with symptoms like nausea and vomiting, and repeated exposure causes dental fluorosis, a permanent disfiguring condition that discolors and damages tooth enamel. The FDA, CDC, WHO, American Dental Association, and American Academy of Pediatrics all say children under six should not use fluoride mouthrinse.
What did Hello Products do wrong?
Hello marketed its Kids Fluoride Rinse in candy flavors like Wild Strawberry and Unicorn Splash directly to preschoolers, using language like tastes magical and tastes so delicious they’ll rush to rinse. The company violated federal law by failing to display the required warning on the front label, and buried safety instructions in tiny blurry text on the back while giving prominent space to marketing claims. This packaging deceived parents into believing the product was specially formulated to be safe for young children when it actually posed serious health risks.
How much fluoride is dangerous for a toddler?
A two-year-old child who swallows just over half of one 16-ounce bottle of Hello Rinse will ingest enough fluoride to exceed the Probable Toxic Dose, which triggers the need for immediate emergency hospitalization because of risk of death. Even a single 10 mL dose contains enough fluoride to cause nausea, vomiting, and stomach pain in a toddler. The product contains the same fluoride concentration as adult mouthrinse, making it particularly dangerous for small children.
What is dental fluorosis?
Dental fluorosis is a permanent condition caused by ingesting too much fluoride while teeth are still developing. It causes mottled discoloration, white streaks, brown or gray patches, and pitted enamel that can never be reversed. In severe cases it requires expensive cosmetic treatment. Research shows that 68% of U.S. children now have some form of fluorosis, a rate that tripled since manufacturers began marketing candy-flavored fluoride products in the 1980s.
Did Hello Products know this was dangerous?
Yes. Hello is owned by Colgate-Palmolive, a multinational corporation with decades of experience following FDA regulations for fluoride products. The FDA published clear guidance in 1995 stating that fluoride mouthrinse is not indicated for children under six. Customer reviews posted on Hello’s own website show parents routinely gave this to two and three-year-olds, proving the company was aware its marketing successfully targeted preschoolers and chose to continue selling to them anyway.
What law did Hello violate?
Hello violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by selling a misbranded drug with false and misleading labeling. Federal regulation 21 CFR 355.55 requires that all fluoride mouthrinse prominently display the statement IMPORTANT: Read directions for proper use on the front label. Hello completely omitted this required warning. The company also violated 21 USC 352(a) by using labeling that is false or misleading in any particular, and 21 USC 352(c) by failing to give required warnings sufficient prominence.
Who is affected by this?
The class action represents all parents and caregivers in California, Illinois, and New York who purchased Hello Rinse for children under age six without direction from a dentist or doctor. Thousands of families likely bought this product believing it was safe based on the kid-friendly packaging and naturally friendly marketing. Children who used the product face risk of acute fluoride poisoning, permanent dental fluorosis, and potential IQ loss based on recent National Toxicology Program findings.
What should parents do if they bought this product?
Parents should immediately stop using Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse on any child under age six. If a child has been using the product, watch for signs of dental fluorosis including white streaks or brown discoloration on developing teeth, and consult a dentist. If a child swallowed a large amount of the rinse, contact poison control immediately. Parents who purchased the product may be eligible to join the class action lawsuit seeking compensation for economic harm and demanding that Hello change its deceptive labeling practices.
Why did regulators allow this?
The FDA is severely underfunded and relies on reactive enforcement rather than proactive monitoring of every product on store shelves. This allows companies to exploit regulatory gaps by pushing the boundaries of acceptable labeling, gambling that they can generate substantial profits before anyone notices the violations. Hello apparently calculated that the revenue from marketing to preschoolers would exceed any eventual legal liability, a business model that treats potential lawsuits as just another cost of doing business.
What reforms could prevent this in the future?
Reforms could include stricter enforcement of existing FDA labeling regulations with substantial fines for violations involving children’s products, potential bans on candy and fruit flavoring in high-fluoride products marketed to kids, mandatory child-resistant packaging for fluoride mouthrinse, requirement for large front-label warnings stating NOT FOR CHILDREN UNDER SIX, proactive FDA inspections rather than waiting for consumer complaints, and significantly higher penalties that exceed the revenue gained from deceptive marketing so companies cannot treat compliance violations as an acceptable business expense.
💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category
Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.
- 💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
- 🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
- 💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
- 🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
- 💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.
