Corporate Misconduct Accountability Project
Kimberly-Clark Corporation · Class Action
Kimberly-Clark Sold Lead-Contaminated Tampons Without Warning, Lawsuit Says
U by Kotex Click tampons allegedly exposed women to lead levels exceeding California safety limits by up to six times per day, with no disclosure or warning label.
CRITICAL SEVERITY
TL;DR
Kimberly-Clark Corporation allegedly sold U by Kotex Click tampons containing lead at levels that exceed California’s safe daily limit for reproductive toxins. Independent lab testing found 0.189 micrograms of lead per gram of product. Using just three regular tampons in 24 hours exposes consumers to nearly double the legal limit. The company marketed these products with claims like ‘no harsh ingredients’ and ‘gynecologist tested’ while failing to disclose the lead or provide any warning label as required by California’s Proposition 65.
Women who used these tampons deserve to know what they were exposed to and why the company stayed silent.
0.189 mcg
Lead per gram of tampon material found in independent testing
0.5 mcg
California’s maximum allowable daily lead exposure for reproductive toxicity
6x
Times over the legal limit with six Super Plus tampons per day
100%
Percentage of U by Kotex Click tampons tested that contained lead
The Allegations: A Breakdown
Core Allegations
What they did · 8 points
| 01 | Kimberly-Clark sold U by Kotex Click compact tampons containing 0.189 micrograms of lead per gram of product material, according to independent laboratory testing cited in the lawsuit. This lead concentration means a single Super Plus tampon contains approximately 0.560 micrograms of lead, already exceeding California’s daily reproductive toxicity limit of 0.5 micrograms before a woman uses a second tampon. | high |
| 02 | The company printed labels claiming ‘no harsh ingredients,’ ‘pesticide free,’ ‘gynecologist tested,’ and ‘BPA free’ on tampon boxes while completely omitting any mention of lead content. These representations led reasonable consumers to believe the products were safe and free from harmful elements and ingredients. | high |
| 03 | Kimberly-Clark violated California’s Proposition 65 by failing to provide any warning label about lead exposure despite being legally required to warn consumers when daily exposure exceeds 0.5 micrograms. The lawsuit alleges the company knew or should have known about the lead content but chose not to disclose it. | high |
| 04 | The lead in these tampons poses particular danger because vaginal insertion allows direct absorption into the bloodstream without the filtering effect of liver metabolism that occurs with ingested substances. The complaint emphasizes that unlike food containing lead that gets metabolized, tampon lead can directly enter systemic circulation and access blood vessels surrounding vital pelvic organs. | high |
| 05 | Women following the product’s own usage instructions face massive overexposure. The product label instructs users to change tampons every 4-8 hours, meaning consumers typically use three to six tampons per day. At that rate, users of regular tampons get exposed to approximately 0.927 to 1.854 micrograms of lead daily, while Super Plus users face 1.679 to 3.358 micrograms, up to six times the legal limit. | high |
| 06 | Kimberly-Clark had an independent duty to disclose the lead content based on the unreasonable safety hazard associated with the products and because the products are unfit for consumer use. The company instead materially omitted this critical health information from all packaging and advertising. | high |
| 07 | The World Health Organization states there is no level of lead exposure known to be without harmful effects, and exposure to lead is particularly harmful to young children and women of childbearing age. Despite this, Kimberly-Clark marketed these tampons directly to that vulnerable population without any warning. | high |
| 08 | The complaint alleges Kimberly-Clark’s conduct was driven by an improper financial motive to derive gain at the expense of accuracy and truthfulness. Reasonable alternatives existed to further the company’s legitimate business interests, but disclosing lead content would have negatively impacted sales and the bottom line. | high |
Public Health and Safety
The hidden danger · 6 points
| 01 | Lead affects almost every organ and system in the body and accumulates over time, leading to severe health risks including inhibited neurological function, anemia, kidney damage, seizures, and in extreme cases, coma and death. The lawsuit cites medical literature documenting these systemic dangers. | high |
| 02 | Vaginal walls are permeable and allow for efficient absorption, as demonstrated in absorption tests of certain medications. Toxins can pass through the vaginal epithelium and enter systemic circulation, making the route of exposure particularly dangerous compared to oral consumption. | high |
| 03 | Vaginal administration bypasses the system of veins that transport blood from the digestive tract to the liver, eliminating the first-pass metabolism that normally reduces drug concentration before it reaches systemic circulation. This means lead from tampons directly accesses networks of blood vessels surrounding vital organs including pelvic organs. | high |
| 04 | The toxic shock syndrome outbreak of the 1980s demonstrated that substances in tampons can enter the bloodstream with serious health consequences. The complaint references this historical precedent to show that tampon contamination is not merely theoretical but has caused documented public health crises. | high |
| 05 | Consumers had no way to detect the lead contamination through normal use. Unlike contaminants that produce odor or visible changes, lead in tampons is completely undetectable to users, leaving women with no ability to protect themselves without specialized laboratory testing. | medium |
| 06 | Women who purchased these products for years potentially accumulated dangerous lead levels in their bodies without any knowledge they were being exposed. The complaint emphasizes that lead accumulates in the body over time, meaning repeated monthly use across years could result in significant total exposure. | high |
Regulatory Failures
System breakdown · 5 points
| 01 | California’s Proposition 65 explicitly requires businesses to provide clear and reasonable warnings to Californians about significant exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. The law sets the Maximum Allowable Dose Level for lead at 0.5 micrograms per day, yet Kimberly-Clark sold products exceeding this limit without warnings for years. | high |
| 02 | The complaint identifies Kimberly-Clark’s violation of Proposition 65 as a predicate basis for violating California’s consumer protection laws. The company’s failure to comply with mandatory warning requirements provided the foundation for broader unfair competition and deceptive advertising claims. | high |
| 03 | The label representations Kimberly-Clark made are not governed by any government or FDA regulation or requirement. The company voluntarily added claims like ‘no harsh ingredients’ and ‘pesticide free’ to appeal to consumers while avoiding any mention of the mandatory lead disclosure. | medium |
| 04 | The regulatory system failed to detect this contamination before it reached consumers. Independent scientific testing conducted for this lawsuit revealed the lead content, not government inspection or corporate quality control, demonstrating how under-resourced oversight allows dangerous products to remain in commerce. | high |
| 05 | Kimberly-Clark owed consumers a duty of care to adequately test its products for the presence of heavy metals and to remediate or disclose their presence if found. The company failed this duty while simultaneously promoting the products as gynecologist tested and safe. | high |
Profit Over People
The calculation · 6 points
| 01 | Kimberly-Clark knew that disclosing lead content would negatively impact sales and the company’s bottom line. The complaint alleges the financial motive to avoid disclosure drove the decision to omit material health information from product labels and advertising. | high |
| 02 | The Kotex brand represents a trusted household name with decades of brand loyalty. The company exploited this consumer trust by relying on its reputation rather than providing complete safety information, calculating that consumers would assume a major manufacturer subjects products to rigorous safety checks. | high |
| 03 | Disclosing lead or adding warning labels would have shattered consumer confidence in the product line. Nobody wants to see ‘WARNING: This product can expose you to lead’ on tampons, creating a powerful financial incentive to suppress the information entirely. | high |
| 04 | The company voluntarily made representations about what the products do not contain, like pesticides and BPA, to create a competitive advantage in the feminine hygiene market. These marketing claims were designed to increase sales by suggesting overall safety while concealing the lead contamination. | medium |
| 05 | Kimberly-Clark is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Irving, Texas. As a large multinational corporation, it possesses extensive legal and financial resources to navigate or forestall regulatory action while continuing to sell allegedly contaminated products. | medium |
| 06 | The company engaged in continuous and systematic business activities within California, intentionally availing itself of the California market through sale and distribution of these products. It conducted business in California while allegedly violating California consumer protection laws to maintain profit margins. | medium |
Economic Fallout
Who paid the price · 6 points
| 01 | Plaintiff Allison Barton purchased the products on numerous occasions during the class period in various sizes including regular and super from CVS, Target, and Rite Aid stores in San Diego. She paid between approximately seven dollars and thirteen dollars ninety-nine cents per box, prices typical of what class members paid. | medium |
| 02 | Consumers suffered economic injury based on money spent to purchase products they would not have bought had they known the truth about lead content. The complaint emphasizes that if consumers had known the products contained unsafe lead levels, they would not have purchased them at all. | high |
| 03 | Other menstrual product options exist on the market, but consumers were deprived of making informed choices between Kimberly-Clark’s products and alternatives. The failure to disclose lead prevented consumers from exercising market choice to protect their health. | medium |
| 04 | The class consists of all California citizens who within four years prior to filing the complaint purchased the products in California and do not claim personal injury from using them. This represents potentially hundreds of thousands of purchasers throughout California who paid for contaminated products. | medium |
| 05 | Individual class members’ claims are too small for most to afford seeking legal redress individually for the wrongs committed against them. Absent a class action, few if any members could pursue relief, allowing Kimberly-Clark to profit from and enjoy ill-gotten gains. | medium |
| 06 | Plaintiff continues to suffer harm because she cannot rely on the labeling and advertising of the products for their truth and cannot determine whether she can purchase the products in the future. The ongoing deception creates continuing economic injury beyond the initial purchase price. | medium |
Corporate Accountability Failures
How they avoided responsibility · 7 points
| 01 | Kimberly-Clark failed to disclose and materially omitted that the products contain lead in violation of California consumer protection law. This omission occurred despite the company’s independent duty to disclose based on the unreasonable safety hazard and unfitness for consumer use. | high |
| 02 | The company’s conduct constitutes an unfair and fraudulent business practice because it knowingly omitted and failed to disclose material information while being aware the omission is material and misleading to consumers. Reasonable alternatives existed to further legitimate business interests other than this deceptive conduct. | high |
| 03 | Kimberly-Clark’s misrepresentation and omission of material facts constitute an unlawful practice because they violate California Civil Code sections on fraud, deceit, and consumer legal remedies, as well as common law. The complaint identifies multiple statutory violations stemming from the same core deception. | high |
| 04 | The company’s conduct in failing to adopt policies in accordance with applicable laws that are binding on and burdensome to competitors constitutes knowing violation of legal requirements. This engenders an unfair competitive advantage for Kimberly-Clark over companies that comply with safety disclosure laws. | medium |
| 05 | Defendant’s uniform representations and material omission were likely to deceive, and the company knew or should have known they were misleading. Despite this knowledge, Kimberly-Clark continued the deceptive practices across all product packaging and advertising. | high |
| 06 | The company violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act by representing that products have characteristics, uses, or benefits which they do not have. The products were represented as free from potentially harmful elements when they contain unsafe lead levels. | high |
| 07 | Kimberly-Clark violated California law by representing that products are of a particular standard, quality, or grade if they are of another. The company advertised products with intent not to sell them as advertised, constituting misbranding under state consumer protection statutes. | high |
The PR Machine
Misleading marketing · 6 points
| 01 | Product labels prominently display claims that the tampons contain ‘no harsh ingredients,’ ‘elemental chlorine-free rayon,’ are ‘pesticide free,’ ‘made without fragrance,’ ‘gynecologist tested,’ and ‘BPA free.’ These representations are designed to lead reasonable consumers to believe the products are safe and free from harmful elements. | medium |
| 02 | The label representations are advertising statements that Kimberly-Clark voluntarily makes to appeal to consumers and increase sales. They are not required by any government or FDA regulation, giving the company freedom to craft a misleading safety message without regulatory oversight. | medium |
| 03 | The representations are misleading based on the lead contained in the products. While the specific claims about pesticides and BPA may be technically true in isolation, they create a false overall impression of safety by omitting the most significant contamination issue. | high |
| 04 | Kimberly-Clark makes other advertising statements on product labels designed to increase sales while completely failing to disclose the lead content. This selective disclosure pattern demonstrates an intentional strategy to emphasize positive attributes while concealing negative facts. | high |
| 05 | The company’s ubykotex.com website instructs users to never go longer than 8 hours, preferably 4 to 8 hours, without changing the product for reasons of odor, hygiene, and especially with tampons, health. This guidance increases usage frequency and thus lead exposure without warning consumers about the contamination. | medium |
| 06 | Reasonable consumers who purchase products bearing these label representations without any disclosure about lead are misled and deceived. The complaint emphasizes that the combination of positive safety claims and complete silence on lead contamination creates actionable consumer deception. | high |
Exploiting Delay
Years of exposure · 5 points
| 01 | Kimberly-Clark continued to sell the misbranded products despite the legal violations. The complaint notes the company continues to sell them even as of the lawsuit filing, demonstrating ongoing rather than past-tense misconduct. | high |
| 02 | Reasonable consumers like the plaintiff had no reason to suspect or know that the products contain lead at the time of purchase. The lack of obvious symptoms like odor or color change meant consumers could not detect contamination through normal use, allowing the company to avoid detection for years. | medium |
| 03 | Only independent scientific testing financed by private parties revealed the lead content, not corporate quality control or government inspection. This demonstrates the company did not voluntarily discover and disclose the problem, and systematic oversight failed to catch it. | high |
| 04 | The plaintiff would like to purchase the products in the future if they did not contain lead, but continues to suffer harm because she cannot rely on labeling and advertising for truth. Unless the company is enjoined from failing to disclose lead, consumers will not be able to determine whether contamination has been addressed. | medium |
| 05 | Plaintiff’s legal remedies are inadequate to prevent future injuries, requiring injunctive relief. Monetary damages alone cannot solve the ongoing problem if Kimberly-Clark continues selling lead-contaminated tampons without disclosure or reformulation. | medium |
The Bottom Line
What this means · 6 points
| 01 | This case represents a fundamental breach of consumer trust involving an essential health product that women rely on monthly. The alleged concealment of lead contamination in tampons demonstrates how corporate profit motives can override basic duties to disclose serious health risks. | high |
| 02 | The lawsuit seeks restitution of amounts Kimberly-Clark acquired through unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices, as well as injunctive relief to stop the misconduct. Plaintiff demands that the court order disgorgement of ill-gotten gains and restoration of money paid for the products. | medium |
| 03 | A class action is superior to other methods for fair and efficient adjudication because individual class members’ claims are too small for most to afford individual legal action. Absent a class, members will continue suffering damage while Kimberly-Clark profits from ill-gotten gains. | medium |
| 04 | The case establishes that when liability has been adjudicated, claims of all class members can be administered efficiently and determined uniformly by the court. This presents no difficulty that would impede management as a class action, making it the best means for plaintiff and class members to seek redress. | low |
| 05 | The complaint alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, providing multiple statutory bases for relief. These overlapping claims reflect the comprehensive nature of the alleged deception across advertising, labeling, and product safety. | medium |
| 06 | Unless Kimberly-Clark is enjoined from failing to disclose lead in the future, plaintiff and consumers will not be able to reasonably determine whether the products are safe. The ongoing nature of the harm requires court intervention beyond monetary relief to protect future purchasers. | medium |
Timeline of Events
2020-2024
Kimberly-Clark manufactured and sold U by Kotex Click compact tampons in California containing lead without disclosure or warning labels.
March 2023
Plaintiff Allison Barton purchased multipack of regular and super U by Kotex Click tampons from Target in San Diego for $8.99.
June 2024
Plaintiff made her most recent purchase of the products from Rite Aid in San Diego before learning of contamination.
2024
Independent laboratory testing revealed U by Kotex Click tampons contain 0.189 micrograms of lead per gram of product material.
July 30, 2024
Plaintiff Allison Barton filed class action complaint in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
Direct Quotes from the Legal Record
QUOTE 1
The fundamental health danger
allegations
“Lead affects almost every organ and system in the body and accumulates in the body over time, leading to severe health risks and toxicity, including inhibiting neurological function, anemia, kidney damage, seizures, and in extreme cases, coma and death.”
💡 This establishes lead is not a minor contaminant but a serious systemic poison that accumulates with repeated exposure.
QUOTE 2
WHO on safe lead levels
health
“The World Health Organization states: There is no level of exposure to lead that is known to be without harmful effects.”
💡 Authoritative international health body confirms there is no safe amount of lead exposure whatsoever.
QUOTE 3
The vaginal absorption danger
health
“Unlike food containing lead that is consumed orally, the Products do not metabolize, and the lead contained in the Products is not filtered by the liver. The lead contained in the Products can directly enter the bloodstream.”
💡 Explains why lead in tampons is more dangerous than lead in food due to direct bloodstream absorption.
QUOTE 4
Bypassing liver protection
health
“In other words, there is no first-pass metabolism and detoxification via the liver but instead the lead in the Products directly enter systemic circulation.”
💡 The normal biological defense against ingested toxins does not protect against tampon contamination.
QUOTE 5
The exposure calculation
allegations
“Based on independent scientific testing and analysis, ordinary and expected use of the Products exposes consumers to far more than 0.5 micrograms of lead per day.”
💡 Normal usage exceeds the legal safety limit, meaning every consumer following instructions faces illegal exposure levels.
QUOTE 6
Corporate knowledge requirement
accountability
“Defendant knows or should know that the Products contain lead.”
💡 Establishes the company cannot claim ignorance as a defense.
QUOTE 7
The duty to disclose
accountability
“Defendant has an independent duty to disclose the lead in the Products based on the health risk associated with use of the Products and/or because the Products are unfit for consumer use.”
💡 The company had a legal obligation to warn consumers beyond just avoiding false statements.
QUOTE 8
The material omission
allegations
“Defendant does not disclose, and materially omits, that the Products contain lead.”
💡 The core of the fraud is silence about the most important safety information.
QUOTE 9
The misleading safety claims
pr_machine
“The Product labels state, for example, that the Products contain no harsh ingredients; that they contain elemental chlorine-free rayon; and that they are pesticide free; made without fragrance; gynecologist tested; and BPA free.”
💡 Shows how the company actively created false impressions of overall safety while hiding lead contamination.
QUOTE 10
Consumer deception
pr_machine
“These label representations are likely to lead reasonable consumers to believe that the Products are safe to use and free from harmful elements and ingredients.”
💡 Explains the mechanism of deception and how consumers were misled into false security.
QUOTE 11
The profit motive
profit
“Defendant had an improper motive—to derive financial gain at the expense of accuracy or truthfulness—in its practices related to the labeling and advertising of the Products.”
💡 Directly alleges the company prioritized profits over honesty and consumer safety.
QUOTE 12
Proposition 65 violation
regulatory
“Based on the lead contained in the Products, Defendant is required to provide a clear and reasonable warning to consumers, including by labeling a consumer product pursuant to Proposition 65.”
💡 California law explicitly required warning labels that were never provided.
QUOTE 13
Economic harm to consumers
economic
“Plaintiff and Class members have suffered economic injury based on their purchase of the Products, which they would not have bought had they known that the Products contain an unsafe amount of lead.”
💡 Establishes concrete financial harm, not just hypothetical health risk.
QUOTE 14
Unavoidable injury
accountability
“Plaintiff and members of the Class could not have reasonably avoided injury. Defendant’s uniform Representations and material omission regarding the Products were likely to deceive, and Defendant knew or should have known that its Representations and omission were misleading.”
💡 Consumers had no way to protect themselves from deception without independent lab testing.
QUOTE 15
Ongoing harm requiring injunction
conclusion
“Unless Defendant is enjoined from failing to disclose the presence of lead in the Products in the future, Plaintiff and consumers will not be able to reasonably determine whether the lead in the Products has been address and remedied. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s legal remedies are inadequate to prevent future injuries.”
💡 Money damages alone cannot fix the problem if contaminated products remain on shelves without warnings.
Frequently Asked Questions
What products are affected by this lawsuit?
All sizes and configurations of U by Kotex Click compact tampons sold during the class period, including Regular, Super, and Super Plus absorbency levels. The lawsuit alleges all these products contain lead above safe exposure limits.
How much lead did testing find in these tampons?
Independent laboratory testing found 0.189 micrograms of lead per gram of tampon material. This translates to approximately 0.309 micrograms per Regular tampon, 0.437 micrograms per Super, and 0.560 micrograms per Super Plus tampon.
What is California’s safe daily limit for lead exposure?
California’s Proposition 65 sets the Maximum Allowable Dose Level at 0.5 micrograms of lead per day for reproductive toxicity. Anything above that level requires a warning label to consumers.
How does using multiple tampons per day affect lead exposure?
Using three regular tampons exposes you to about 0.927 micrograms of lead (nearly double the limit), while six regular tampons result in 1.854 micrograms (almost four times the limit). Super Plus users face even higher exposure, with six tampons delivering 3.358 micrograms, more than six times the legal daily limit.
Why is lead in tampons more dangerous than lead in food?
When you ingest lead through food, your liver filters and metabolizes it before it fully enters your bloodstream. Tampons inserted vaginally bypass this liver protection entirely, allowing lead to be absorbed directly into the bloodstream and access blood vessels surrounding vital pelvic organs.
What did Kimberly-Clark put on the product labels?
The company marketed these tampons with claims like no harsh ingredients, pesticide free, gynecologist tested, BPA free, made without fragrance, and elemental chlorine-free rayon. None of these labels mentioned lead or included any warning about lead exposure.
Did Kimberly-Clark know about the lead in these tampons?
The lawsuit alleges the company knew or should have known about the lead content. It argues Kimberly-Clark had a duty to test its products for heavy metals and either remediate the problem or disclose the contamination to consumers, but failed to do either.
What laws did this allegedly violate?
The complaint alleges violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code section 17200), False Advertising Law (section 17500), Consumer Legal Remedies Act (Civil Code section 1750), and Proposition 65 warning requirements for reproductive toxins.
Who can join this class action?
The class includes all California citizens who purchased U by Kotex Click compact tampons in California within four years before the lawsuit was filed and who do not claim personal injury from using the products. The focus is on economic harm from purchasing misrepresented products.
What is the lawsuit asking for?
The plaintiff seeks class certification, monetary damages and restitution for all affected consumers, injunctive relief to stop Kimberly-Clark from selling these products without proper warnings or reformulation, attorneys’ fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
What can I do if I purchased these tampons?
If you are a California resident who purchased U by Kotex Click tampons in the past four years, you may be a class member. Monitor this case for notices about how to participate. You can also choose to stop using these products and select alternatives while this case proceeds.
Are other tampon brands affected?
This lawsuit specifically targets Kimberly-Clark’s U by Kotex Click compact tampons. The complaint does not make allegations about other brands, though it references a broader study about metals in various tampon products. Consumers may want to research testing for other brands they use.
💡 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.
