In Re Procter & Gamble Aerosol Products MDL
Silver Golub & Teitell led a coalition of firms that successfully resolved claims against Procter & Gamble arising from the sale of aerosol spray products contaminated with benzene. SGT filed the first case and successfully argued that all cases filed nationwide should be consolidated in the Southern District of Ohio. Following extensive mediation, SGT and co-counsel reached a settlement providing up to $8 million in cash refunds and vouchers for class members, plus important injunctive relief requiring P&G to test for benzene and establish strict contamination limits. The court granted final approval on June 16, 2023.
Overview
In December 2021, Procter & Gamble announced a voluntary recall of 32 aerosol spray products, including antiperspirants, deodorants, and dry shampoos from brands like Pantene, Old Spice, and Herbal Essences, after discovering benzene contamination. Laboratory testing revealed the carcinogen in products marketed as safe for daily use.
SGT filed the first lawsuit in the Southern District of Ohio, and Partner Steven L. Bloch successfully argued before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that all similar cases nationwide should be consolidated there.
Case Information
The case is In Re Procter & Gamble Aerosol Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation MDL No. 3025 before the Hon. Michael Watson in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Huertas v. Bayer LLC
Silver Golub & Teitell represents purchasers of Lotrimin AF and Tinactin aerosol antifungal sprays which were recalled by Bayer due to contamination with dangerous levels of benzene. On May 13, 2026, the court granted final approval to a $4.85 million settlement resolving claims that Bayer's Lotrimin and Tinactin antifungal aerosol products were contaminated with benzene. Over 1.4 million class members submitted valid claims.
Overview
In October 2021, Bayer announced a voluntary recall of certain Lotrimin and Tinactin aerosol products distributed between September 2018 and September 2021 after discovering benzene contamination. Laboratory testing revealed extremely high levels of benzene in products marketed as safe treatments for fungal infections. The contamination was traced to the aerosol propellant system supplied by third-party manufacturers.
SGT and co-counsel filed suit alleging that Bayer and other defendants sold contaminated products, failed to warn consumers about benzene, breached warranties, violated consumer protection laws, and were negligent in quality control.
Case Information
The Case is Juan Huertas v. Bayer USA LLC, No: 2:21-cv-20021 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey before the Hon. Stanley R. Chesler. The class includes all persons in the United States who purchased recalled Lotrimin or Tinactin aerosol products from November 16, 2015, through the date of preliminary approval.
Little v. Unilever United States, Inc.
Silver Golub & Teitell filed the first lawsuit in the country against Unilever for benzene contamination in dry shampoo products, which caused Unilever to issue a nationwide recall of affected brands. SGT is leading a proposed class action settlement that would provide $3.625 million in relief to consumers who purchased Unilever dry shampoos contaminated with benzene.
Overview
In September 2022, SGT filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging that laboratory testing revealed several Unilever dry shampoo brands were contaminated with benzene. The affected brands include Dove, Nexxus, Suave, TIGI (Bed Head and Rockaholic), TRESemmé, and Living Proof.
Following the lawsuit, Unilever issued a voluntary recall in October 2022 of several dry shampoo products, citing "potentially elevated levels of benzene." However, the complaint alleges the recall was insufficient because it only covered certain lots and did not adequately compensate customers for the health risks they faced or inform them of the serious dangers associated with benzene exposure.
Case Information
The case is Elizabeth Little v. Unilever United States, Inc., No. 3:22-cv-01189, before the Hon. Michael Shea in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
