The Brand You Trusted. The Chemical They Hid.

Church & Dwight Co., Inc. is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Ewing, New Jersey. It is one of the largest household products companies in America, and Trojan is its flagship sexual health brand. Trojan offers more than 30 varieties of condoms. On every box, the company tells you it has been “trusted for over 100 years” and that the product is “triple tested” from “premium quality latex.”

• PFAS, or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are a family of thousands of synthetic chemicals. Their defining characteristic is a carbon-fluorine bond, one of the strongest chemical bonds found in nature. That bond is why they do not break down. In bodies, in soil, in water, PFAS persist indefinitely.
• Independent lab testing commissioned by the plaintiff detected organic fluorine in Trojan condoms. Organic fluorine is the chemical marker for PFAS. It is present in all PFAS compounds and is nearly impossible to confuse with other substances because inorganic fluorine, such as the fluoride in toothpaste, does not register on total organic fluorine (TOF) tests.
• Total organic fluorine testing is the scientific standard accepted by researchers and regulators for detecting PFAS. It captures the 99.99% of PFAS varieties that cannot be detected by narrower, targeted tests. A positive TOF result means PFAS are present. There is no credible false-positive scenario described in the literature.
• Church & Dwight, as the manufacturer, had exclusive knowledge of every ingredient in its product. It also had access to its ingredient suppliers, who could have provided additional information about chemical contents. The company chose not to disclose any of this to the people applying the product to their genitals.
• Trojan charges a premium above generic and competitor condom prices. The complaint argues this premium was extracted under false pretenses, because no reasonable consumer would pay a premium for a product they knew contained carcinogenic forever chemicals.

The Non-Financial Ledger: What This Actually Means for Your Body

Forget the legal language for a moment. Here is what actually happened to Matthew Goodman and to every person who bought a Trojan condom without knowing what was in it.

You bought a condom. You read the box. It said “America’s #1 Condom,” “trusted for over 100 years,” “triple tested,” “premium quality latex.” You reasonably concluded the product was safe. You used it for the exact purpose it was designed for: placed directly against the most permeable skin on your body, or your partner’s body. Then body heat rose. And according to the complaint, that heat accelerated the transfer of PFAS through the skin barrier. The genital tissues, as the complaint specifies, are “delicate tissues that are more prone to absorbing chemicals than other areas of the body.” You were not in a factory. You were not near a landfill. You were in your bedroom, doing something that human beings have done forever, with a product you trusted, and you were being dosed with a chemical class that the EPA now says has no safe level of exposure at all.

There is also oral exposure. The complaint explicitly raises the possibility that PFAS from the product enter the body “orally during or after the use of Defendant’s Products during sexual activity.” This is not a hypothetical. It is a documented exposure pathway the company never warned anyone about.

What does PFAS exposure actually do? The carbon-fluorine bond in PFAS is one of the strongest in chemistry. That is why the chemicals do not break down. Once they are in your body, they stay. They accumulate over time. Repeated exposure compounds the load. The complaint cites a list of documented health associations: cancer, liver damage, decreased fertility, asthma, thyroid disease, immune suppression, and hormonal disruption. These are not fringe claims. They are drawn from the CDC, the EPA, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and peer-reviewed research.

For children, the picture is worse in a specific way. PFAS exposure has been linked to lower antibody responses to vaccines. A child with PFAS in their system may not develop full immunity to diseases that vaccines are supposed to prevent. The complaint sources this finding to published research. This matters because PFAS in adults are passed to children, through breast milk and through environmental contamination. The damage does not stay contained to whoever used the condom.

There is no treatment. No chelation therapy, no medical procedure, no drug exists that effectively removes PFAS from the human body. The only medically endorsed strategy, according to the complaint citing expert consensus, is to avoid further exposure. Church & Dwight denied every consumer who bought a Trojan condom the ability to make that choice, because it never told them the chemicals were there.

“There is no effective treatment for removal of PFAS chemicals from the body. Therefore, experts agree that the most effective strategy to decrease health risk is to avoid and/or limit exposure to products known to contain PFAS chemicals.”

This is a product used by millions of people, on some of the most chemically absorbent tissue in the human body, with zero disclosure. The company knew. The label said nothing.

Ninety-eight percent of consumers surveyed said they want to know if a product contains harmful chemicals. Church & Dwight knew this. It knew PFAS were dangerous. It knew its product contained them. It chose profit over disclosure.

Legal Receipts: What the Complaint Actually Says, Word for Word

These are direct quotations from the complaint filed September 9, 2024. They are not paraphrased. Each is followed by a breakdown of what it proves.

“Unbeknownst to consumers, the Products are unfit for their intended purpose because they contain PFAS, ‘forever chemicals,’ which are dangerous to human health. This is not disclosed anywhere on the Product packaging.” Complaint, Paragraph 6

• This is the core allegation in plain language. The product is “unfit for its intended purpose.” That is a legal standard, not hyperbole. A condom applied to genitals that delivers toxic chemicals into the body fails at the one job it is supposed to do.
• The absence of any disclosure on packaging was a deliberate design of the product’s presentation. Church & Dwight, as manufacturer, controlled what appeared on that packaging.

“The female and male genitals have delicate tissues that are more prone to absorbing chemicals than other areas of the body. When condoms are placed on genitalia, PFAS can be absorbed readily. What is more, when body temperature increases during sexual intercourse, the heat can increase the transfer of PFAS through the skin barrier. PFAS may also enter consumers’ bodies orally during or after the use of Defendant’s Products during sexual activity.” Complaint, Paragraphs 32–33

• This establishes that genital skin is a high-absorption surface, making PFAS exposure from this product more severe than incidental skin contact from, say, a stain-resistant carpet.
• The heat-acceleration mechanism means the normal conditions of condom use, elevated body temperature during sex, actively worsen the chemical transfer. The product is most dangerous precisely when it is being used correctly.
• The oral exposure pathway broadens the class of harm beyond skin absorption and makes the concealment even more egregious.

“PFAS chemicals can be harmful at extremely low levels of exposure. According to the EPA, the levels at which negative human health effects could occur are significantly lower than previously understood, including at near zero in some instances. In other words, there is no ‘safe’ level of exposure to PFAS chemicals. Even ‘trace’ levels of PFAS can be harmful to human health.” Complaint, Paragraphs 42–43

• This forecloses any defense that the PFAS detected were at “acceptable” levels. Under current EPA science, no level is acceptable. The EPA set the health-based goal for PFOA and PFOS, two major PFAS compounds, at zero.
• This paragraph also neutralizes any future argument by Church & Dwight that detection amounts were too small to matter. The regulator responsible for setting those standards has already ruled they cannot be too small to matter.

“Defendant knew or should have known that PFAS are dangerous, and concealing this known fact is detrimental to the consumer. Defendant had superior knowledge or means of knowledge available to them and knew that Plaintiff and Class Members would rely upon the representations and omissions of Defendant regarding the quality and ingredients of its condoms.” Complaint, Paragraphs 118, 121

• This establishes the “superior knowledge” element required for fraudulent concealment. The company knew. The consumer could not know without lab testing. That information asymmetry is exactly what the concealment claim is built on.
• PFAS have been widely discussed in scientific literature, regulatory guidance, and media for years before this lawsuit. There is no plausible claim of ignorance available to a major consumer products manufacturer.

“Defendant’s false statements, misleading, and material omissions are intentional and careless, and render their condoms worthless or less valuable.” Complaint, Paragraph 66

• “Intentional and careless” placed together in a legal complaint is deliberate. It signals the plaintiff is pursuing both willful misconduct and gross negligence theories simultaneously, which widens the path to punitive damages.
• “Worthless or less valuable” is the damages hook. If any detection of PFAS exceeds the EPA’s zero-based health goal, the product delivered no safety value, only the appearance of it.

Societal Impact Mapping: Who Pays When a Corporation Hides What’s in Its Product

Public Health

The health damage from PFAS in Trojan condoms is not theoretical. It is grounded in a body of regulatory and scientific literature that the complaint assembles into a damning record.

• Cancer risk: PFAS have been linked to multiple cancer types. The EPA set the health-based goal for PFOA and PFOS at zero parts per trillion, explicitly acknowledging that any detected level carries cancer risk. Trojan users experienced repeated genital exposure across many uses.
• Liver damage: Both the CDC and cited expert Dr. Lina S. Birnbaum identified liver damage as a documented health consequence of PFAS exposure. The liver is the body’s primary detoxification organ; PFAS burden the system it cannot clear them from.
• Decreased fertility: PFAS exposure has been specifically linked to reproductive harm. The complaint cites both the CDC’s documented findings and research connecting PFAS to reproductive issues and hormonal disruption. A product marketed as a reproductive health product was delivering reproductive harm.
• Thyroid disruption: Research cited in the complaint connects PFAS to thyroid disorders. The thyroid regulates metabolism, body weight, energy, and hormone balance. PFAS interference with thyroid function can cascade across multiple body systems.
• Immune suppression: PFAS weaken immune response. Dr. Birnbaum’s statement, quoted in the complaint, explicitly links PFAS to increased vulnerability to infectious diseases, including COVID-19. A compromised immune system means longer illness, higher severity, and reduced vaccine efficacy.
• Children’s vaccine response: PFAS in adults, transmitted through breast milk and environmental pathways, have been linked to lower antibody responses to vaccines in children. A child exposed to parental PFAS burden may not achieve full immunization from standard childhood vaccines.
• Asthma: The CDC has documented increased asthma risk associated with PFAS exposure. The complaint cites this among the CDC’s outlined health effects.
• Dermal immunotoxicity: A study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health specifically found that skin-based (dermal) exposure to PFOA, one of the most studied PFAS compounds, is immunotoxic, meaning it damages immune system function through skin contact. Genital skin contact with PFAS-containing condoms is dermal exposure at a high-absorption site.

“There is no safe level of PFAS exposure. Even trace levels can be harmful to human health.” The EPA set the health-based goal for PFOA and PFOS at zero. Church & Dwight sold a product that exceeded that goal, to millions of people, without a single word of warning.

Economic Inequality

The financial harm in this case sits on top of the health harm. Lower-income consumers, who have fewer resources to seek alternatives and less access to independent lab testing, are the most locked in to trusting what the label says.

• Premium pricing under false pretenses: Church & Dwight charges more for Trojan than generic and competitor alternatives. The complaint states directly that this premium is derived from the brand’s cultivated reputation for quality and trust. That reputation was manufactured while the company concealed a material defect.
• No ability to detect PFAS at point of sale: Consumers have no way to test for PFAS while standing in a pharmacy aisle. The only way to know was to send the product to an independent lab, as the plaintiff did. That is a barrier available only to people with resources and legal backing. Most Trojan buyers have neither.
• No alternative disclosure exists: Because Trojan’s packaging contained no PFAS warning, consumers who chose Trojan over a competitor could not have made an informed comparison. They were buying on a false premise enforced by the packaging they read.
• Aggregate class damages exceed $5 million: The complaint establishes federal jurisdiction on the basis that the collective claims exceed $5,000,000. This is a floor, not a ceiling. Trojan condoms are sold in every major pharmacy, grocery, and convenience chain in America. The number of affected buyers is enormous.
• Unjust enrichment at scale: Church & Dwight collected premium pricing across millions of transactions, retaining profits generated by a misrepresentation. The lawsuit seeks disgorgement of those profits. If successful, the money flows back to the people who were overcharged for a product that harmed them.

The “Cost of a Life” Metric: What Church & Dwight Was Protecting

What Now: Who to Hold Accountable and What You Can Do Today

The lawsuit is in federal court. The class is nationwide. Here is what accountability looks like and how to accelerate it.

The Defendant

• Church & Dwight Co., Inc. — Delaware corporation, principal place of business in Ewing, New Jersey. Manufacturer, marketer, and seller of Trojan brand condoms. Named defendant in Case No. 1:24-cv-06813, S.D.N.Y.
• The complaint names Church & Dwight’s executive and board leadership by role as having final authority over product formulation, labeling decisions, and ingredient disclosure policies. Specific names of current executives are not reproduced in the source complaint; contact Church & Dwight’s investor relations directly for board member identification.

Regulatory Watchlist

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA issued the first-ever national legally enforceable PFAS drinking water standards in April 2024 and has set the health-based goal for PFOA and PFOS at zero. The EPA has authority to regulate PFAS in consumer products. File a consumer concern at epa.gov.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): The CDC has documented the full spectrum of PFAS health effects cited in this case. The CDC’s National Biomonitoring Program tracks PFAS body burden in Americans. Public pressure on CDC reporting can accelerate product-specific studies.
• Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC): The CPSC has authority over the safety of consumer products. A condom that delivers known toxic chemicals to users without disclosure is a candidate for CPSC action. File a report at SaferProducts.gov.
• Federal Trade Commission (FTC): The FTC enforces truth-in-advertising law. Marketing a product as “trusted,” “triple tested,” and “premium quality” while concealing PFAS contamination is precisely the kind of deceptive trade practice the FTC is empowered to investigate. File a complaint at ftc.gov/complaint.
• Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Condoms are classified as medical devices regulated by the FDA. The FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health has authority over device safety. File a MedWatch report at fda.gov.
• New York State Attorney General: The complaint explicitly invokes New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, which prohibit deceptive acts and false advertising in New York. The AG’s office enforces these statutes independently of the civil class action.

What You Can Do Right Now

• If you purchased Trojan brand condoms, document your purchase. Save receipts, photos of packaging, or bank/credit card records. This documentation may qualify you as a class member if and when the court certifies the class.
• Contact Bursor & Fisher, P.A. (jarisohn@bursor.com, mgirardi@bursor.com, cdonovan@bursor.com), the firm representing the plaintiff. Class actions require numbers; your documentation strengthens the case.
• Switch to PFAS-free alternatives. The complaint notes that “comparable condoms on the market do not contain PFAS.” Research brands that publish third-party testing data for their products. Demand transparency before you buy.
• Talk to your doctor about PFAS testing. Blood serum tests can detect PFAS bioaccumulation. If you are concerned about lifetime exposure, ask your healthcare provider about available testing options.
• Organize locally. Community health organizations, reproductive health clinics, and harm reduction networks are often the first institutions people trust. Sharing this investigation with those organizations puts pressure on retailers to demand transparency from manufacturers.
• Pressure retailers. Trojan condoms are sold at CVS, Walgreens, Walmart, Target, and Amazon. These retailers have leverage over Church & Dwight that individual consumers do not. Contacting their corporate responsibility teams and asking what PFAS standards they require from condom suppliers is a concrete, documented action.
• Support PFAS legislation. Federal PFAS legislation and state-level bills targeting PFAS in consumer products are active in multiple legislatures. Find your representatives at congress.gov and contact them using the specific framing of this case: PFAS in intimate-use products with no label disclosure.