The new lawsuit, filed Monday, claims Troy condoms are unsafe because they contain toxic “forever chemicals” that have been linked to cancer.
In a proposed class action lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court, plaintiff Matthew Goodman alleges that Church & Dwight's products, advertised as “America's #1 Condoms,” contain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and are therefore unfit for their intended purpose.
Goodman said an independent lab tested Trojan Ultra Thin condoms he bought from a Manhattan pharmacy and found them to contain organofluoride, which is “virtually nonexistent” outside of man-made PFAS chemicals.
“Upon viewing the label, Mr. Goodman reasonably believed the product was safe for use on his genitals,” the lawsuit says, referring to Goodman.
“Had the Defendants included on their labels information about the products containing PFAS chemicals and the potential harm that can result from contact with PFAS chemicals, Defendants would not have purchased their products, or at least would have paid significantly less for them,” they added.
The lawsuit seeks at least $5 million in damages from Ewing, New Jersey-based Church & Dwight to purchasers of Trojan condoms nationwide.
Church & Dwight did not immediately respond to a request for comment after market hours, nor did lawyers for the plaintiffs immediately respond to a similar request.
consumer advocacy blog Mamavation said in July. test Of 29 popular condoms and lubricants, several were found to potentially contain PFAS, including Trojan Ultra Thin condoms.
PFAS are found in hundreds of consumer and commercial products, including cosmetics, nonstick pans and stain-resistant clothing.
These have become known as “forever chemicals” because they are not easily broken down in the human body or the environment.
PFAS have been associated with: Adverse health effects These include high cholesterol, low birth weight, reduced antibody response to vaccines, and kidney and testicular cancer.
The case is Goodman v. Church & Dwight Co., U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 24-06813.
