A class action filed in May 2025 accuses Dr. Bronner’s of selling toothpaste that contains undisclosed heavy metals, including lead, mercury, and arsenic. The Dr. Bronner’s toothpaste lawsuit, Johnston v. All One God Faith Inc., was brought in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California and alleges the company marketed its All-One Toothpaste as safe while concealing neurotoxic contaminants that independent testing had detected.1Top Class Actions. Dr. Bronner’s Class Action Lawsuit Claims Toothpaste Contains Neurotoxic Heavy Metals
What the Lawsuit Alleges
Plaintiff Bianca Johnston filed the complaint on May 6, 2025 (Case No. 3:25-cv-01147) against All One God Faith Inc., which does business as Dr. Bronner’s. She claims she would not have purchased the toothpaste if she had known it contained lead, mercury, and arsenic, and that the company misrepresented the product as safe for human health.1Top Class Actions. Dr. Bronner’s Class Action Lawsuit Claims Toothpaste Contains Neurotoxic Heavy Metals
Johnston seeks to represent a nationwide class and a California subclass of consumers who bought the toothpaste for personal use. The complaint asks the court to order a product recall, bar future sales of toothpaste containing these metals, and require restitution to class members. She is represented by Matthew J. Langley of Almeida Law Group LLC, a Chicago firm that focuses on consumer protection and false advertising class actions.1Top Class Actions. Dr. Bronner’s Class Action Lawsuit Claims Toothpaste Contains Neurotoxic Heavy Metals
The core legal theory is about disclosure, not FDA compliance. Johnston does not claim that Dr. Bronner’s exceeded federal toothpaste limits. She claims consumers were entitled to know about the contamination before buying.
The Heavy Metal Levels Cited
The complaint relies on an April 2025 report by Lead Safe Mama, a product safety advocacy group led by Tamara Rubin. Testing of Dr. Bronner’s toothpaste reported:
- Lead: 160.0 parts per billion (ppb)
- Arsenic: 23.0 ppb
- Mercury: 6.0 ppb
To frame those numbers as unsafe, the lawsuit points to the FDA’s standards for bottled water: 10 ppb for arsenic and 2 ppb for mercury. The Dr. Bronner’s product exceeded both.1Top Class Actions. Dr. Bronner’s Class Action Lawsuit Claims Toothpaste Contains Neurotoxic Heavy Metals That comparison has a built-in weakness the company will likely press: bottled water is consumed by the glass, while toothpaste is used in small amounts and rinsed out.
The complaint does not identify which ingredient is the source. Broader reporting on heavy metals in toothpaste points to calcium carbonate, hydroxyapatite, and bentonite clay as common carriers, with bentonite clay products showing the highest contamination.2The Guardian. Toothpaste Lead Heavy Metals3Fortune. Toothpaste Brands Toxic Metals Lead Arsenic Mercury Cadmium Dr. Bronner’s Peppermint All-One Toothpaste includes calcium carbonate but not bentonite clay or hydroxyapatite.4Dr. Bronner’s. Peppermint All-One Toothpaste Calcium carbonate can carry trace metals if not adequately refined.
What Dr. Bronner’s Says
The company has not publicly responded to the lawsuit itself but has addressed heavy metal concerns through its customer support pages. Dr. Bronner’s states that its All-One Toothpaste is third-party tested and “meets all relevant governmental safety guidelines for heavy metals in toothpaste products.”5Dr. Bronner’s. Is Dr. Bronner’s All-One Toothpaste Tested for Heavy Metals
The company draws a distinction between toothpaste and products that are swallowed, like drinking water or baby food. It also argues that “trace amounts of heavy metals are frequently present in products made from natural and mineral ingredients,” comparing the situation to certified organic whole foods such as sweet potatoes, carrots, and spinach, which can contain trace amounts of the same metals.5Dr. Bronner’s. Is Dr. Bronner’s All-One Toothpaste Tested for Heavy Metals The dispute reduces to a simple divide: the company says trace contamination is an unavoidable feature of natural mineral ingredients and does not render the product unsafe; the plaintiff says consumers deserved to know about it anyway.
Why FDA Rules Don’t Decide the Case
The suit is possible in part because federal limits on lead in toothpaste are unusually high. The FDA allows up to 10,000 ppb of lead in fluoride-free formulas and 20,000 ppb in fluoride toothpastes.2The Guardian. Toothpaste Lead Heavy Metals No product in the Lead Safe Mama study came close to those thresholds, including Dr. Bronner’s at 160 ppb of lead.
Because compliance with FDA toothpaste limits gives plaintiffs no traction, the lawsuits reach for stricter benchmarks written for other products. Johnston’s complaint uses FDA bottled water standards. Other suits reference the Baby Food Safety Act of 2021, which proposed 5 ppb for lead, 5 ppb for cadmium, 2 ppb for mercury, and 10 ppb for arsenic. That bill stalled in Congress and never became law.3Fortune. Toothpaste Brands Toxic Metals Lead Arsenic Mercury Cadmium Washington’s Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act, which took effect in January 2025, sets a 1,000 ppb lead limit for cosmetics including toothpaste; the state has acknowledged that limit “can be difficult, if not impossible, to achieve in some products.”6Public Health Toxicology. Health Risk Implications of Heavy Metals in Toothpaste
Part of a Wider Wave of Toothpaste Suits
The Johnston case is one of several class actions filed in 2025 that trace back to the same Lead Safe Mama testing. Rubin used an XRF lead detection tool for initial screenings, then crowdfunded independent laboratory testing on popular brands. The study covered 51 to 53 toothpastes; roughly 90% contained detectable lead, 65% contained arsenic, nearly half contained mercury, and about a third contained cadmium. Fifteen brands showed lead levels above 300 ppb, some above 500 ppb, and only five products had no detectable heavy metals.2The Guardian. Toothpaste Lead Heavy Metals3Fortune. Toothpaste Brands Toxic Metals Lead Arsenic Mercury Cadmium
Similar suits have been filed against Colgate-Palmolive, Tom’s of Maine, and Hello Products, with the Hello complaint alleging lead levels between 428 and 493 ppb in kids’ toothpaste, several times what was reported for Dr. Bronner’s.7Classaction.org. Hello Toothpaste Lawsuit Filed Over Alleged Lead Mercury Contamination8Classaction.org. Tom’s of Maine Lawsuit Claims Kids Toothpaste Contaminated With Lead Arsenic Almeida Law Group, the firm representing Johnston, has also filed a similar action against Davids Natural Toothpaste. Compared with the other suits, the levels alleged in the Dr. Bronner’s product sit on the lower end of the industry range. That does not defeat the disclosure claim, but it shapes how the case looks next to the others.
Where the Case Stands
As of mid-2026, Johnston v. All One God Faith Inc. remains in its early stages. Available docket information shows no class certification ruling, no motion to dismiss activity, and no settlement discussions since the complaint was filed on May 6, 2025.9PACER Monitor. Johnston v. All One God Faith Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-1147-JO-BLM The parallel lawsuits against Colgate-Palmolive, Tom’s of Maine, and Hello Products also remain active, with the Colgate litigation having gone through two amended complaints. No class has been certified in the Dr. Bronner’s case, so there is nothing to file a claim against yet; consumers watching the litigation should track the docket for a certification decision before expecting any consumer-facing next step.