Court ruling entered September 29, 2026
Status: Class certified · No settlement yet · Nothing to claim at this time
California Court Certifies Class in Tampax Lead Lawsuit
On September 29, 2026, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel 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 first class certification in the wave of Tampax lead lawsuits filed after the 2024 UC Berkeley study reported measurable metals, including lead, in tampons from several brands.
Key Takeaways
- On September 29, 2026, a California federal judge certified a class of Tampax Pearl and Radiant buyers in Barton v. Procter & Gamble
- The class covers California purchases from July 29, 2020 through the date class notice is sent
- It is the first class certification in the Tampax lead litigation — a major milestone
- Plaintiffs are seeking full refunds and possible label changes, not injury compensation
- A mandatory settlement conference is set for December 10, 2026
- No settlement exists yet — there is nothing to claim and no deadline right now
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. The judge certified the class both for money damages and for a court order that could require label changes, and he allowed the plaintiff's full-refund damages theory to move forward.
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 made her claims atypical. The judge rejected both arguments at this stage. He also kept most of the plaintiff's survey expert testimony, cutting only opinions tied to a failure-to-disclose theory the plaintiff is no longer pursuing.
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 (i.e., purchases from July 29, 2020 onward) and running through the date class notice is sent.
People who claim a personal injury from using the tampons are excluded, because this 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.
Case Timeline & What Happens Next
Lawsuit filed
Barton v. Procter & Gamble filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, four years back from that date setting the start of the eventual class period.
Case survives early challenges
The case survived two motions to dismiss, a bid to move the case to Ohio, and a challenge to class treatment.
Sealing dispute resolved
The judge rejected most of both sides' requests to keep class-certification exhibits under seal, ordering narrower redaction requests.
Class certified — the major ruling
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel certified a class of California buyers of Tampax Pearl and Tampax Radiant — the first class certification in the Tampax lead litigation.
Mandatory settlement conference
A settlement conference before the magistrate judge is scheduled. A settlement is possible but not guaranteed.
Final pretrial conference
Final pretrial conference scheduled. Dates can move.
What This Means — and What It Does Not
What it means
- P&G is now defending claims for a whole class of California buyers — roughly six years of purchases, over 30 million units per the plaintiff's motion.
- Many consumer class actions are resolved after certification rather than tried, which raises settlement pressure. A settlement conference is set for December 10, 2026.
- It sets a template: similar lead-labeling claims are pending against P&G in Illinois on behalf of buyers in other states.
What it does not mean
- The judge made no finding that Tampax contains unsafe lead or that P&G's labels are false. These remain unproven allegations that P&G denies.
- Nobody is getting paid yet — there is no settlement fund, claim form, or deadline. The class covers California purchases only.
- P&G can ask the Ninth Circuit to review the ruling, and can still win at summary judgment or trial.
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 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.
California's regulatory backdrop has also strengthened: SB 754, signed in 2025, requires manufacturers of disposable tampons and pads to maintain and report information on the concentrations of specified chemicals — including lead, arsenic, and cadmium — to the Department of Toxic Substances Control beginning December 31, 2026.
Do I need to do anything right now?
No. There is no settlement yet, so there is no claim form, deadline, or payout. California buyers of Tampax Pearl or Tampax Radiant since July 29, 2020 are likely already part of the certified class and should watch for an official court-approved notice. Keeping proof of purchase is a sensible precaution. If you experienced health issues you believe are linked to tampon use, those injury claims are separate from this consumer class action — you can request a free case review to understand your options.
Sources & Citations
- [1]Barton v. The Procter & Gamble Company, No. 3:24-cv-01332 — Class Certification Order — U.S. District Court, Southern District of California (2026)
- [2]Tampax Lead Lawsuit Certified as a Class Action for California Buyers — OpenClassActions (2026)View source
- [3]
- [4]