California buyers of Tampax Pearl and Tampax Radiant tampons became members of a certified class on September 29, 2026, when a federal judge allowed their lawsuit accusing Procter & Gamble of misleading labeling over lead to proceed as a class action. There is no settlement or claim form, and the allegations remain unproven.
Allegations Only · No Settlement Yet
A certified class means the claims can be tried for all class members together. It is not a finding that Procter & Gamble did anything wrong. The lead and labeling claims described below are unproven allegations that P&G denies, and there is nothing to claim at this time. This page is informational and is not legal advice.
What Happened?
U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on September 29, 2026 certified a class of California consumers in Barton v. The Procter & Gamble Company, No. 3:24-cv-01332, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The ruling lets buyers of Tampax Pearl and Tampax Radiant tampons pursue their claims against P&G together instead of one by one. The judge certified the class both for money and for a court order that could require label changes.
It is the first class certification in the wave of Tampax lead lawsuits filed after a 2024 study reported measurable metals, including lead, in tampons from several brands. The case has now survived two motions to dismiss, a bid to move it to Ohio and a challenge to class treatment. The judge also refused to throw out most of the testimony of the plaintiff's survey expert.
Free settlement alerts
Get notified when new class actions open to claims
Join thousands of readers who get the latest class action settlements you may qualify for — delivered straight to your inbox.
What This Means for the Case
This is the biggest development in the Tampax lead litigation since the first lawsuit was filed in July 2024. Until today, the California case was one shopper's claim against P&G. Now it is a lawsuit on behalf of every California buyer of Tampax Pearl and Tampax Radiant over roughly six years, covering more than 30 million units sold, according to the plaintiff's motion.
That changes the stakes in three ways:
- Size: P&G is now defending claims for a whole class of California buyers, not one person. The plaintiff is seeking full refunds, and the judge let that theory go forward. Whether buyers are actually owed full refunds is still for a later stage.
- Pressure to settle: many consumer class actions are resolved after certification rather than tried, because a loss at a class trial can be far more costly than a single plaintiff's case. The court has already set a mandatory settlement conference for December 10, 2026. A settlement is possible but not guaranteed.
- A template for other cases: the same lead-labeling claims are pending against P&G in Illinois on behalf of buyers in other states. A judge there is not bound by this ruling, but it is the first time a court has found the Tampax claims suitable for class treatment.
What it does not mean: the judge made no finding that Tampax contains unsafe lead or that P&G's labels are false. P&G denies the claims, can ask the Ninth Circuit to review the ruling, and can still win at summary judgment or trial. Nobody is getting paid yet, and the class covers California purchases only.
For shoppers, the practical takeaway is simple. California buyers of Tampax Pearl or Radiant since July 29, 2020 are likely already in the class and do not need to sign up or file anything now. Keeping any receipts, order histories or loyalty-card records of those purchases is sensible in case a settlement later asks for them, and class members should watch for an official court notice.
Who Is in the Certified Class?
The class covers California citizens who bought any size or configuration of Tampax Pearl or Tampax Radiant tampons in California, starting four years before the original complaint was filed on July 29, 2024 and running through the date class notice is sent. People who claim a personal injury from using the tampons are excluded, because the case seeks refunds and label changes rather than injury compensation.
According to the plaintiff's motion, more than 30 million units of the tampons were sold during the class period, and P&G did not dispute that the class is large enough to certify. The named plaintiff was appointed class representative, and KamberLaw LLP was appointed class counsel.
What Did the Judge Decide?
The central question was whether the Tampax labels can be judged the same way for every buyer. The boxes carried statements such as “#1 U.S. Gynecologist Recommended Tampon Brand,” “Free of Perfume,” “Free of Elemental Chlorine Bleaching,” “Tampon Free of Dyes” and “Clinically Tested Gentle to Skin.” The plaintiff says those statements lead shoppers to believe the tampons are free of harmful substances such as lead. Because California's consumer protection laws use an objective “reasonable consumer” test, the judge held that whether the labels are material and misleading is a common question that can be answered for the whole class at once.
P&G argued that some shoppers would keep buying Tampax even if they knew about trace lead, and that the named plaintiff's lack of receipts and personal history made her claims atypical. The judge rejected both arguments at this stage. He also allowed the plaintiff's full-refund damages theory to move forward. He noted that the theory matches the claim that informed buyers would not have paid for the tampons at all, and that whether that is true is a question for trial.
The judge granted P&G's motion to exclude the plaintiff's survey expert only in part. He cut the expert's opinions about what shoppers expect to be told, because the plaintiff is no longer pursuing a failure-to-disclose theory. He kept the rest, saying criticisms of the survey's design go to how much weight it gets rather than whether it can be used.
What the Ruling Did Not Decide
The judge did not find that Tampax tampons are unsafe or that the labels are false. He said P&G's argument that there is no common proof the tampons are unsafe is a merits question for later. P&G told the court its own testing found detectable lead in all tampons, including organic cotton products. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has said available evidence has not identified safety concerns linked to tampon use and contaminant exposure, while further testing continues.
The court also noted that P&G changed the packaging in 2024, dropping two of the challenged statements and altering one. The judge found the remaining statements substantially the same, which supported certifying the class for a possible court order on the labels.
What the Court Record Shows
The ruling summarizes evidence the plaintiff cited from P&G's own files, which remains contested. According to the plaintiff, an internal P&G consumer survey found that if shoppers learned of lead in the tampons, 35% would stop buying them, 7% would switch to natural or other brands and 6% would switch to reusable products. The plaintiff also said P&G found that “Does Tampax have lead?” was the second most common Google search tied to the products, and that the company invested in safety messaging after an internal study.
In a separate August 26, 2026 order, the judge rejected most of both sides' requests to keep class-certification exhibits under seal, calling many of them overbroad. He ordered narrower redaction requests. The certification ruling itself was filed under seal, with a public redacted version.
What Happens Next?
P&G can ask the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the class certification ruling. Such requests are due within 14 days of the order, and the appeals court decides whether to hear one. The court's scheduling order sets a mandatory settlement conference before the magistrate judge on December 10, 2026 and a final pretrial conference on January 29, 2027. Those dates can move, and a settlement conference does not mean a settlement will be reached.
Class members will likely receive a court-approved notice later explaining their rights, including the option to exclude themselves. No notice plan had been announced as of September 29, 2026. For the full case history, product list and related cases, see OCA's Tampax lead lawsuit tracker.
Other Tampax Lead Cases
The California case is the most advanced of several. A multi-state case filed in federal court in Ohio in November 2025 was voluntarily dismissed on January 14, 2026. The same group of plaintiffs, minus the California buyer, then filed Otkina v. The Procter & Gamble Company, No. 1:26-cv-00773, in the Northern District of Illinois on January 23, 2026. That case seeks a nationwide class excluding California, along with a multi-state class and state subclasses. It remains at an early stage, and no class has been certified there.
Questions
Who is in the certified Tampax class?
California citizens who bought any size or configuration of Tampax Pearl or Tampax Radiant tampons in California from four years before the July 29, 2024 complaint through the date class notice is sent, and who do not claim a personal injury from using them.
Is class certification a big deal for the Tampax lawsuit?
Yes. It turns one shopper's claim into a case on behalf of every California buyer of Tampax Pearl and Radiant since July 2020, which raises the stakes for Procter & Gamble and often increases pressure to settle. It is not a finding that P&G did anything wrong, and there is no settlement yet.
Does class certification mean Tampax tampons are unsafe?
No. The judge did not decide whether the tampons are unsafe or whether the labels are misleading. He decided only that those questions can be answered for all California buyers together. Procter & Gamble denies the allegations, and the claims remain unproven.
Is there a Tampax settlement or claim form?
No. As of September 29, 2026 there is no settlement, no settlement fund and no claim form. Any money would come only from a court-approved settlement or a win at trial.
Do California Tampax buyers need to do anything now?
Nothing has to be filed now. In a certified damages class, members are normally sent a court-approved notice that explains their rights, including the option to exclude themselves. No notice schedule had been announced as of September 29, 2026.
What about Tampax buyers outside California?
The certified class covers California only. A separate case filed in January 2026 in federal court in Illinois seeks a nationwide class that excludes California, plus several state classes. That case has not been certified.
Read the Class Certification Order
Sources
- Order granting class certification (PDF), Barton v. The Procter & Gamble Company, S.D. Cal., Sept. 29, 2026
- Barton v. The Procter & Gamble Company docket, S.D. Cal. No. 3:24-cv-01332 (Order granting class certification, ECF No. 131, Sept. 29, 2026; order on motions to seal, ECF No. 120, Aug. 26, 2026)
- Otkina v. The Procter & Gamble Company docket, N.D. Ill. No. 1:26-cv-00773
- Sanchez v. The Procter & Gamble Company docket, S.D. Ohio No. 1:25-cv-00852 (notice of voluntary dismissal, Jan. 14, 2026)
