The Snow Teeth Whitening lawsuit gained public attention as a multi-year legal battle centered around allegations that the company engaged in deceptive advertising and sold ineffective teeth whitening products. The lawsuit, filed in federal court in New York, accused Snow Cosmetics LLC and its high-profile celebrity endorsers—boxer Floyd Mayweather and NFL star Rob Gronkowski—of misleading consumers with exaggerated claims about product efficacy and safety.
Background of the Snow Teeth Whitening Lawsuit
Snow Teeth Whitening markets an LED-based teeth whitening system that includes a mouthpiece with LED light technology and a whitening serum. The company claimed their patented LED mouthpiece accelerates whitening by breaking down peroxide-based gels more effectively than competitors. The lawsuit challenged these claims, citing independent laboratory testing showing no material benefit from the LED light.
Additionally, the lawsuit criticized advertising that touted the products as FDA-approved when cosmetic teeth whitening products are not subject to FDA approval. The marketing also made unsubstantiated assertions about the serum being a proprietary formula and falsely denied tooth sensitivity issues despite selling desensitizing products.
Main Allegations
- False Advertising: Snow allegedly exaggerated product benefits, including speed and effectiveness of whitening results.
- Misleading Safety Claims: The lawsuit contended the company misrepresented its whitening serum as painless despite marketing desensitizing add-ons.
- Improper Use of FDA Logo: Advertising utilized the FDA logo to imply endorsement or approval, which does not exist for these cosmetic products.
- Celebrity Endorsements Without Full Disclosure: Mayweather and Gronkowski were sued as partners and endorsers, accused of promoting misleading claims without clarifying their paid endorsements.
- Exploitation of Pandemic Concerns: The company was alleged to have made false claims suggesting products might offer coronavirus protection or possess antimicrobial benefits without scientific basis.
Legal Proceedings and Outcome
The lawsuit was filed in December 2020 by plaintiff Burton Kraus, who asserted that Snow’s advertising amounted to a “widespread fraudulent scheme” duping thousands of consumers and resulting in financial harm. Kraus alleged that the complaints were substantiated by lab tests and contradicted Snow’s public statements.
However, in September 2022, the federal court dismissed the class action lawsuit, ruling that the plaintiff failed to adequately demonstrate a connection between the alleged false advertising and his actual purchase decision. The judge found troubling evidence that the plaintiff may have purchased the product only to generate the lawsuit.
Despite dismissal, the case raised significant questions about marketing ethics, regulatory oversight, and consumer protection in niche cosmetic products.
Celebrity Endorsements Controversy
The involvement of Rob Gronkowski and Floyd Mayweather intensified public scrutiny. Both athletes vigorously promoted Snow products through commercials, social media, and direct endorsements, with Mayweather reportedly receiving substantial compensation.
Critics argue their endorsements lent unwarranted credibility to the products despite lack of scientific backing and FDA approval. The lawsuit sought to hold them accountable for misleading consumers alongside the company executives.
Consumer and Industry Impact
The Snow Teeth Whitening lawsuit exemplifies the challenges consumers face in navigating claims in the cosmetic industry. It has raised awareness about verifying product claims and the potential influence of celebrity endorsements on purchasing choices.
Industry regulators and watchdog organizations have emphasized the importance of truthful advertising and transparent disclosures to safeguard consumer interests.
Conclusion
Although the Snow Teeth Whitening lawsuit was dismissed, it remains a pivotal case underscoring the legal risks and ethical responsibilities associated with marketing cosmetic products. Consumers are urged to critically assess claims and seek evidence-based products, while companies must maintain transparency and avoid deceptive practices to build and retain trust.
The case serves as a cautionary tale for brands, endorsers, and advertisers alike, highlighting the intersection of law, commerce, and consumer protection.
