Loading
Manufacturing
6 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Dermatology, Toxicology, Chemical Engineering, Labels And Warnings, Product Liability
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Sixth Circuit
Court:
The Old Spice lawsuit, formally Rodney Colley v. Procter & Gamble Co., was a proposed class action filed in 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged that certain Old Spice deodorant products caused skin injuries including burning, rashes, irritation, scarring, discoloration, scabbing, and peeling skin.
The federal litigation ended without any judicial finding on defect, causation, warning adequacy, or damages. The court's most significant rulings addressed pleading precision, class-action manageability, and whether the complaint adequately tied each plaintiff's alleged injury to a particular product, not the underlying merits of the skin injury claims.
For lawyers, insurers, and business readers, this case offers procedural lessons that extend well beyond the personal care industry.
The plaintiffs alleged the following skin-related injuries after using certain Old Spice deodorant products:
Plaintiffs file a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Procter & Gamble. The complaint asserts product liability, negligence-based claims, warranty claims, and consumer protection allegations arising from alleged skin injuries caused by certain Old Spice deodorant products.
The case is transferred from the Columbus division to the Western Division in Cincinnati.
The court issues its central ruling, striking the class allegations and dismissing several claims. The court found the amended complaint did not adequately connect each plaintiff's alleged injury to a specific Old Spice product. It did not clearly state which plaintiff used which product or which injuries each plaintiff allegedly suffered from a particular product. The court also found the proposed class structure incompatible with class treatment due to multiple products, multiple named plaintiffs, individualized personal injury allegations, and subclasses arising under the laws of numerous states. Claims dismissed in this order included the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim, breach of express warranty, claims for prospective injunctive relief, and unjust enrichment.
The court gives plaintiffs 21 days to seek leave to amend their complaint.
Plaintiffs move for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), stating they intend to pursue a later mass action based on individual claims in the Court of Common Pleas for Hamilton County, Ohio. The court grants the motion. Class claims are dismissed with prejudice; remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice.
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Case Name:
Rodney Colley et al. v. Procter & Gamble Co. d/b/a Old Spice
Cosmetics
Personal Care Products
Consumer Products
Product Safety
Dermatitis
Chemical Burns
Safety Warnings
Consumer Protection
Chemical Analysis
The Old Spice lawsuit, formally Rodney Colley v. Procter & Gamble Co., was a proposed class action filed in 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs alleged that certain Old Spice deodorant products caused skin injuries including burning, rashes, irritation, scarring, discoloration, scabbing, and peeling skin.
The federal litigation ended without any judicial finding on defect, causation, warning adequacy, or damages. The court's most significant rulings addressed pleading precision, class-action manageability, and whether the complaint adequately tied each plaintiff's alleged injury to a particular product, not the underlying merits of the skin injury claims.
For lawyers, insurers, and business readers, this case offers procedural lessons that extend well beyond the personal care industry.
The plaintiffs alleged the following skin-related injuries after using certain Old Spice deodorant products:
Plaintiffs file a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against Procter & Gamble. The complaint asserts product liability, negligence-based claims, warranty claims, and consumer protection allegations arising from alleged skin injuries caused by certain Old Spice deodorant products.
The case is transferred from the Columbus division to the Western Division in Cincinnati.
The court issues its central ruling, striking the class allegations and dismissing several claims. The court found the amended complaint did not adequately connect each plaintiff's alleged injury to a specific Old Spice product. It did not clearly state which plaintiff used which product or which injuries each plaintiff allegedly suffered from a particular product. The court also found the proposed class structure incompatible with class treatment due to multiple products, multiple named plaintiffs, individualized personal injury allegations, and subclasses arising under the laws of numerous states. Claims dismissed in this order included the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim, breach of express warranty, claims for prospective injunctive relief, and unjust enrichment.
The court gives plaintiffs 21 days to seek leave to amend their complaint.
Plaintiffs move for voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(2), stating they intend to pursue a later mass action based on individual claims in the Court of Common Pleas for Hamilton County, Ohio. The court grants the motion. Class claims are dismissed with prejudice; remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice.
Product Identification Cannot Be Handled in General Terms
The court found that the complaint described injuries in collective terms rather than in a way that would allow the court to evaluate causation and liability on an individualized basis. In a lawsuit involving several products and several plaintiffs, courts may expect the complaint to specify which plaintiff used which product and what injury allegedly followed. General group allegations can create immediate problems where causation and liability depend on individualized facts.
Personal Injury Claims Often Resist Classwide Treatment
The court's ruling reflects a common obstacle in product liability class actions. Even where plaintiffs allege similar harm from related products, differences in product use, symptoms, medical history, reliance, and governing state law can make class treatment difficult to sustain, especially when the case includes personal injury allegations rather than only economic-loss theories.
The Federal Court Did Not Decide Defect, Causation, or Liability
The federal court did not determine that Old Spice products caused the alleged injuries, that the warnings were inadequate, or that Procter & Gamble was liable. The case is significant because it illustrates the power of procedural rulings, not because it produced a final adjudication on the underlying product-defect allegations.
Pleading Strategy Can Affect the Entire Litigation Path
This case never advanced to a final federal merits decision, yet remains instructive because the pleadings themselves largely determined the outcome. Before discovery matured and before experts were publicly litigated in the federal forum, the complaint's structure affected which claims survived, which were dismissed, and whether the case could remain a class action at all.
Plaintiffs May Reframe the Case After a Procedural Setback
The plaintiffs' decision to seek voluntary dismissal instead of filing another federal amended complaint shows how early procedural defeats can change forum and strategy. When a proposed class theory becomes difficult to maintain, counsel may decide that individual or mass-filed claims provide a more workable path than continued efforts to salvage the original federal structure.
The following expert witness categories are commonly involved in consumer product skin injury litigation. These descriptions reflect the types of analysis such experts may perform in cases of this kind.
A dermatology expert may evaluate the nature, timing, and likely cause of the alleged skin condition. In a case involving claims of burning, rash, discoloration, or peeling, that expert may assess whether the presentation is consistent with irritant contact dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, chemical irritation, or another dermatologic condition.
A toxicologist may review the product's ingredients, expected exposure conditions, and relevant scientific literature to assess whether the substances at issue are capable of causing the alleged effects. This analysis can be important where plaintiffs claim injury from routine consumer use rather than from obvious misuse or industrial exposure.
A chemical engineer or product formulation expert may evaluate the product's composition, manufacturing process, and ingredient interactions. In personal care product cases, that work may help address whether a formulation presents an unusual risk of irritation under ordinary conditions of use.
A regulatory or labeling expert may analyze product warnings, instructions, and packaging language. That analysis often focuses on whether the labeling conveyed material risk information clearly enough and whether the warnings were consistent with common industry practices and applicable regulatory frameworks.
A human factors expert may examine how consumers are likely to understand and use the product in real-world settings. That can be relevant when the dispute includes questions about ordinary consumer behavior, foreseeable misuse, or whether packaging and directions adequately guided safe use.
Did the court find that Old Spice deodorant caused chemical burns or skin injuries?
No. The federal court did not make a factual finding that Old Spice products caused chemical burns, rashes, or other skin injuries. The case ended before any final ruling on defect, causation, or liability.
Why did the federal class action end?
The case ended after the court struck the class allegations, dismissed several claims, and identified pleading deficiencies in the complaint. Rather than filing another amended complaint in federal court, the plaintiffs sought voluntary dismissal.
Were all claims dismissed permanently?
Not all of them. The class claims were dismissed with prejudice, while the remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice.
What injuries were alleged in the lawsuit?
The plaintiffs alleged skin-related injuries including burning, rashes, irritation, scarring, discoloration, scabbing, and peeling skin after using certain Old Spice deodorant products.
What is the main legal lesson from this case?
The main lesson is that product liability complaints must be pleaded with precision, especially when multiple plaintiffs, multiple products, and personal injury allegations are involved. The case also shows how difficult it can be to maintain class treatment where individualized issues dominate.
Product Identification Cannot Be Handled in General Terms
The court found that the complaint described injuries in collective terms rather than in a way that would allow the court to evaluate causation and liability on an individualized basis. In a lawsuit involving several products and several plaintiffs, courts may expect the complaint to specify which plaintiff used which product and what injury allegedly followed. General group allegations can create immediate problems where causation and liability depend on individualized facts.
Personal Injury Claims Often Resist Classwide Treatment
The court's ruling reflects a common obstacle in product liability class actions. Even where plaintiffs allege similar harm from related products, differences in product use, symptoms, medical history, reliance, and governing state law can make class treatment difficult to sustain, especially when the case includes personal injury allegations rather than only economic-loss theories.
The Federal Court Did Not Decide Defect, Causation, or Liability
The federal court did not determine that Old Spice products caused the alleged injuries, that the warnings were inadequate, or that Procter & Gamble was liable. The case is significant because it illustrates the power of procedural rulings, not because it produced a final adjudication on the underlying product-defect allegations.
Pleading Strategy Can Affect the Entire Litigation Path
This case never advanced to a final federal merits decision, yet remains instructive because the pleadings themselves largely determined the outcome. Before discovery matured and before experts were publicly litigated in the federal forum, the complaint's structure affected which claims survived, which were dismissed, and whether the case could remain a class action at all.
Plaintiffs May Reframe the Case After a Procedural Setback
The plaintiffs' decision to seek voluntary dismissal instead of filing another federal amended complaint shows how early procedural defeats can change forum and strategy. When a proposed class theory becomes difficult to maintain, counsel may decide that individual or mass-filed claims provide a more workable path than continued efforts to salvage the original federal structure.
The following expert witness categories are commonly involved in consumer product skin injury litigation. These descriptions reflect the types of analysis such experts may perform in cases of this kind.
A dermatology expert may evaluate the nature, timing, and likely cause of the alleged skin condition. In a case involving claims of burning, rash, discoloration, or peeling, that expert may assess whether the presentation is consistent with irritant contact dermatitis, allergic contact dermatitis, chemical irritation, or another dermatologic condition.
A toxicologist may review the product's ingredients, expected exposure conditions, and relevant scientific literature to assess whether the substances at issue are capable of causing the alleged effects. This analysis can be important where plaintiffs claim injury from routine consumer use rather than from obvious misuse or industrial exposure.
A chemical engineer or product formulation expert may evaluate the product's composition, manufacturing process, and ingredient interactions. In personal care product cases, that work may help address whether a formulation presents an unusual risk of irritation under ordinary conditions of use.
A regulatory or labeling expert may analyze product warnings, instructions, and packaging language. That analysis often focuses on whether the labeling conveyed material risk information clearly enough and whether the warnings were consistent with common industry practices and applicable regulatory frameworks.
A human factors expert may examine how consumers are likely to understand and use the product in real-world settings. That can be relevant when the dispute includes questions about ordinary consumer behavior, foreseeable misuse, or whether packaging and directions adequately guided safe use.
Did the court find that Old Spice deodorant caused chemical burns or skin injuries?
No. The federal court did not make a factual finding that Old Spice products caused chemical burns, rashes, or other skin injuries. The case ended before any final ruling on defect, causation, or liability.
Why did the federal class action end?
The case ended after the court struck the class allegations, dismissed several claims, and identified pleading deficiencies in the complaint. Rather than filing another amended complaint in federal court, the plaintiffs sought voluntary dismissal.
Were all claims dismissed permanently?
Not all of them. The class claims were dismissed with prejudice, while the remaining claims were dismissed without prejudice.
What injuries were alleged in the lawsuit?
The plaintiffs alleged skin-related injuries including burning, rashes, irritation, scarring, discoloration, scabbing, and peeling skin after using certain Old Spice deodorant products.
What is the main legal lesson from this case?
The main lesson is that product liability complaints must be pleaded with precision, especially when multiple plaintiffs, multiple products, and personal injury allegations are involved. The case also shows how difficult it can be to maintain class treatment where individualized issues dominate.
Cosmetics
Personal Care Products
Consumer Products
Product Safety
Dermatitis
Chemical Burns
Safety Warnings
Consumer Protection
Chemical Analysis
Manufacturing
Metallurgy, +4
Manufacturing
Manufacturing, +4
Manufacturing