NUK ‘Orthodontic’ Pacifiers Do Not Support Children’s Dental Development as Advertised, Class Action Says

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

A proposed class action lawsuit claims the makers of NUK pacifiers have misled consumers by falsely representing that their “orthodontic” pacifiers promote healthy oral and orofacial development in children.

Want to stay in the loop on class actions that matter to you? Sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.

The 36-page lawsuit says that Newell Brands, Inc. and Graco Children’s Products, Inc.—who together sell NUK-brand pacifiers—have violated New York law by deceptively using the term “orthodontic” in advertising and on product packaging to convey that the items improve dental health development by correcting improperly positioned teeth and jaws.

However, contrary to the products’ representations, NUK “orthodontic” pacifiers “cannot and do not” improve or support healthy oral and orofacial development and, in fact, put children at a greater risk of developing several kinds of dental malocclusions—that is, deviations from ideal teeth alignment, the suit alleges.

The NUK pacifiers are sold through online retailers such as Amazon and in stores including Target, Walgreens, CVS, Walmart, Buybuy Baby and Safeway, the case relays. Per the complaint, the products at issue include at least:

• NUK Orthodontic Pacifiers;
• NUK Space Orthodontic Pacifiers;
• NUK Latex Orthodontic Pacifiers;
• NUK Sports Orthodontic Pacifiers;
• NUK Confetti Orthodontic Pacifiers;
• NUK Fashion Orthodontic Pacifiers;
• NUK Sensitive Orthodontic Pacifiers; and
• NUK Juicy Orthodontic Pacifiers.

According to the filing, statements on the packaging claim the pacifiers have a “100% baby approved orthodontic shape” that “Naturally Fits Baby’s Mouth for Healthy Oral Development.” On the NUK website, the defendants similarly represent that the “orthodontic” pacifiers are “flatter to allow more room for a natural sucking motion, slimmer to reduce pressure on the jaw and teeth, and narrower to prevent teeth misalignment,” the lawsuit adds.

The suit argues, however, that marketing a pacifier as “orthodontic” is misleading because “no pacifier is capable of promoting oral development,” and prolonged pacifier use can cause substantial harm by impeding a child’s dental and orofacial structural growth.

As the case tells it, clinical studies consistently show that “there is no advantage or benefit” to using a so-called “orthodontic” pacifier over a traditional one, as continued use of an “orthodontic” product leads to the same risks and harms associated with a persistent non-nutritive sucking habit.

“Children who use pacifiers to continue non-nutritive sucking habits have an increased risk of dental malocclusions … of primary teeth, which, in turn, may interfere with a child’s chewing, swallowing, speech, and jaw development and function,” the complaint explains. “Dental malocclusions and teeth misalignment may also have a significant adverse effect on a child’s psychosocial development, self-image, and social well-being.”

The filing contends that despite “ample dental and orthodontic studies and literature demonstrating the contrary,” the companies behind NUK pacifiers consistently represent their “orthodontic” products as supportive of healthy dental development and omit the material facts that the items can be detrimental to children’s oral and orofacial growth.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who purchased NUK “orthodontic” pacifiers in New York within the applicable statute of limitations period.

Get class action lawsuit news sent to your inbox – sign up for ClassAction.org’s free weekly newsletter here.