California Judge Certifies Class Action in Tampax Lead Lawsuit (Sept. 29, 2026)

What the Ruling Decided

On September 29, 2026, Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California certified a consumer class in Barton v. The Procter & Gamble Company, No. 3:24-cv-01332. The ruling allows buyers of Tampax Pearl and Tampax Radiant tampons to pursue their claims against Procter & Gamble together rather than one by one — both for money damages (a full-refund theory) and for a possible court order requiring 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 transfer bid, and a challenge to class treatment. The judge also refused to throw out most of the plaintiff's survey expert testimony.

The central question was whether the Tampax labels can be judged the same way for every buyer. The challenged statements — such as "#1 U.S. Gynecologist Recommended Tampon Brand," "Free of Perfume," "Free of Dyes," and "Clinically Tested Gentle to Skin" — the plaintiff argues, 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 question that can be answered for the whole class at once.

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, beginning 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 the Ruling Did Not Decide

The judge made no finding that Tampax tampons are unsafe or that the labels are false. Whether the tampons contain unsafe levels of lead is a merits question for later stages of the case. P&G denies the claims, told the court its own testing found only detectable trace lead, and can ask the Ninth Circuit to review the certification ruling within 14 days of the order.

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.

What Happens Next

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 guarantee a settlement.

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. 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.

A parallel case, Otkina v. The Procter & Gamble Company (N.D. Ill., No. 1:26-cv-00773), seeks a nationwide class excluding California and remains at an early stage — no class has been certified there.

What This Means for Consumers

Related Resources