Searches for the Boka toothpaste lawsuit return a confusing mix of attorney advertisements, summaries of advertising rulings and heavy metal testing reports, and many of those pages blur the line between a filed court case, a regulatory decision and an unproven allegation. This article separates those threads using primary sources, including the complaint filed in Los Angeles, the federal court docket and the published decisions of the advertising industry’s self-regulatory bodies.
In short, one consumer class action was filed against the company behind Boka in late 2025, it concerned subscription billing rather than the toothpaste itself, and the federal docket shows the plaintiff dismissed it with prejudice in December 2025. Separately, Boka’s remineralization and whitening claims were challenged by Procter & Gamble and found unsupported by two advertising review panels in 2025. This guide offers general legal information, not legal advice, and it reflects public records available as of November 2026.
What Is the Boka Toothpaste Lawsuit About?
The phrase “Boka toothpaste lawsuit” is used online to describe several different things at once: a consumer class action over automatic subscription renewals, a competitor’s advertising challenge before an industry review body, and a wave of law firm investigations prompted by independent heavy metal tests.
Only the first of these has produced a court filing that this research could verify, and none has produced a court judgment against the company. Understanding which of these tracks a given claim belongs to is the most useful first step for any reader trying to judge whether the headlines apply to them.
Why Boka Toothpaste Has Come Under Scrutiny
Boka sells fluoride-free oral care products built around nano-hydroxyapatite, commonly abbreviated nHA, a mineral form of calcium phosphate that is chemically similar to the main mineral in tooth enamel. The brand has been marketed as a science-backed alternative to fluoride, with messaging about remineralizing enamel, whitening teeth and supporting a healthy oral microbiome.
Because the products are positioned as a replacement for the most established cavity-fighting ingredient, they attract more regulatory and legal attention than an ordinary toothpaste would. The scrutiny has come from three directions: a larger competitor that sells fluoride toothpaste, plaintiff-side lawyers looking for consumer protection claims, and independent advocates who tested the products for trace metals.
Who Owns Boka Toothpaste?
Boka is sold by Essor Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation that does business through the boka.com website. The Garcia complaint filed in 2025 alleged that Essor’s principal place of business is in New York, and Essor is the party named in both the National Advertising Division and National Advertising Review Board decisions discussed below.
Identifying the correct corporate entity matters in practice because it determines which court has jurisdiction, which terms of service apply to online purchases and who a consumer would have to name in a claim. Boka’s published terms of service include an arbitration provision and a class action waiver, which can affect how an individual buyer may bring a dispute.
Is There a Class Action Lawsuit Against Boka Toothpaste?
A class action is a lawsuit in which one or more named plaintiffs sue on behalf of a larger group of people with similar claims. In federal court these cases are governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in California state court by comparable state procedure. A proposed class action only becomes a true class action if a judge certifies the class, which never happened in any case involving Boka according to the records reviewed for this article.
Understanding the Garcia v. Essor Group Case
The only consumer class action against Essor that could be verified in public court records is Garcia v. Essor Group, Inc., filed on October 31, 2025 in the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles under case number 25STCV32134.
The plaintiff, Silvia Garcia, alleged that she bought Boka’s Orange Cream nano-hydroxyapatite toothpaste from boka.com on May 22, 2025 for $17.29 and was charged the same amount again on July 22, 2025 as a recurring monthly charge, after which she cancelled. Critically, the complaint was not about what is in the toothpaste or whether it works. It was an automatic renewal case.
The complaint relied on California’s Automatic Renewal Law, found at California Business and Professions Code sections 17600 and following, which requires businesses to present renewal terms clearly and conspicuously before a purchase, to obtain affirmative consent, and to send an acknowledgment that explains the cancellation policy and how to cancel.
Garcia alleged that Boka’s checkout page displayed its renewal and cancellation language in small light gray type beneath a large “Pay now” button, and that the post-purchase confirmation email omitted required terms. She pleaded three causes of action, namely violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (California Civil Code section 1750 and following), the False Advertising Law (Business and Professions Code section 17500 and following) and the Unfair Competition Law (Business and Professions Code section 17200 and following).
The proposed class was limited to people who, while in California, bought something from Boka’s website in response to an automatic renewal offer. The complaint did not allege that nHA fails to remineralize teeth and did not mention heavy metals.
What Happened to the Proposed Class Action?
On December 5, 2025, Essor removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, where it was docketed as case 2:25-cv-11610. Removal is the procedure by which a defendant moves a qualifying state court case into federal court under 28 U.S.C. section 1441.
Essor then stipulated to extend its deadline to answer the complaint to January 11, 2026. Before any answer or ruling, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal on December 18, 2025, and the docket entry states that the dismissal was with prejudice.
A dismissal with prejudice generally means the plaintiff cannot bring the same claims again. Because no class had been certified, such a dismissal would ordinarily bind only the named plaintiff rather than other Boka customers, although anyone with concerns about their own rights should consult a lawyer.
The docket does not state why the plaintiff dismissed the case, and the public record does not show whether the parties resolved it privately. Readers should note that the publicly mirrored docket used for this article was last retrieved in December 2025, so a PACER search is the way to confirm that nothing has been filed since.
Is There an Active Boka Toothpaste Lawsuit?
Based on the sources reviewed, no active consumer class action over Boka’s toothpaste claims, ingredients or heavy metals is pending in a court that could be verified. A national class action firm, CohenMalad, LLP, has publicly described an investigation into Boka’s marketing and the heavy metal reports, but an investigation by a law firm is not a lawsuit and does not mean a court has accepted any claim.
Several third-party websites describe the matter as being in discovery or at the class certification stage, or suggest that new plaintiffs have joined, but those statements are not supported by the docket for the one case that actually exists and should be treated with caution. Court filings, not marketing pages, are the reliable measure of whether a case is active.
Why Is Boka Toothpaste Facing Legal Scrutiny?
The legal questions around Boka are less about whether nHA is safe and more about whether the company could prove the specific benefits it advertised. Safety and efficacy are separate questions, and the law treats them differently. Regulators and courts generally ask whether advertised benefits are truthful and substantiated, which depends on the quality of the evidence behind each claim.
Claims About Nano-Hydroxyapatite (nHA)
In the United States, toothpaste that promises to prevent cavities is regulated as an over-the-counter drug. The Food and Drug Administration’s anticaries monograph, designated M021 and posted in its current form in May 2023 under section 505G of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, recognizes fluoride compounds as the active ingredients for cavity prevention.
Toothpastes without fluoride are generally treated as cosmetics, which do not require FDA approval before sale but also cannot lawfully make drug-style disease prevention claims. This is the regulatory backdrop that makes remineralization language so sensitive for a fluoride-free brand.
Outside the United States the picture differs. The European Union’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety issued a final opinion in 2025, numbered SCCS/1677/25, concluding that nano-hydroxyapatite with defined characteristics, namely rod-shaped, uncoated and unmodified particles, is safe in oral hygiene products.
That opinion addresses safety under the EU Cosmetics Regulation, Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009, and does not settle whether nHA prevents cavities. In the Boka proceedings, the review panel noted that neither the FDA nor the American Dental Association has concluded that nHA remineralizes teeth.
Allegations of Misleading Advertising
Advertising that overstates a product’s benefits can be challenged under several bodies of law. At the federal level, section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, codified at 15 U.S.C. section 45, prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, and the FTC expects advertisers to hold a reasonable basis for objective claims before they are made.
Competitors can bring false advertising claims under section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1125(a). At the state level, consumers in California may sue under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the False Advertising Law and the Unfair Competition Law, while New York, where Essor is alleged to be based, has its own consumer protection statutes in General Business Law sections 349 and 350.
These laws generally ask whether a reasonable consumer would be misled by the claim and whether the advertiser had adequate evidence. None of them has yet been applied to Boka’s remineralization or whitening claims by a court. The only adjudication of those claims came from an industry self-regulatory process, which is not a court and cannot award damages.
Concerns About Tooth Remineralization and Whitening
The remineralization and whitening claims drew the most attention because they are product-level promises. A study showing that an ingredient has a property in a laboratory does not necessarily prove that a finished toothpaste, with its particular concentration, abrasives, pH and other ingredients, delivers the same result in a person’s mouth.
The advertising reviewers found that the evidence Essor submitted did not test the finished Boka toothpaste and that there was no suitable substitute product that did. On whitening, Essor pointed to the mechanical action of brushing, the silica and sodium bicarbonate abrasives in its formulas, and nHA depositing crystals on the enamel surface. The reviewers concluded this did not provide a reasonable basis for telling consumers that the toothpaste whitens teeth.
What Did the NAD and NARB Rulings Say About Boka?
The National Advertising Division and the National Advertising Review Board are the two tiers of an industry self-regulation system run by BBB National Programs. They are not government agencies or courts, and participation is voluntary, but their decisions carry weight because advertisers that refuse to comply can be referred to the Federal Trade Commission. These are the most concrete legal developments in the Boka story.
Procter & Gamble’s Challenge Against Boka
The proceeding began when The Procter & Gamble Company, which sells fluoride toothpaste under the Crest brand, challenged several Boka advertising claims before the National Advertising Division.
Competitor challenges of this kind are a routine way for large advertisers to police a crowded market. P&G was not asking the reviewers to decide whether nHA has potential benefits. The question was whether Essor had competent and reliable evidence to support the specific performance claims it made about its own products.
The May 2025 NAD and July 2025 NARB Decisions
On May 1, 2025, the National Advertising Division issued its decision in Case 7412. It found that Essor had a reasonable basis to say Boka toothpastes are made with nano-hydroxyapatite, but it recommended that Essor discontinue claims that the toothpaste remineralizes or fortifies teeth and enamel, claims that it whitens teeth, and a prebiotic claim tied to Boka mouthwash.
Essor also voluntarily agreed to permanently discontinue several other claims during the proceeding, which the division treated for compliance purposes as though it had recommended their discontinuance. Essor announced that it would appeal.
On July 21, 2025, a panel of the National Advertising Review Board, which hears appeals from the division, issued its decision in NARB Case 7412-339. The panel agreed with the division. It found that the remineralization claims convey a dental health benefit that consumers would expect to receive, that Essor lacked competent and reliable science to support it, and that neither the FDA nor the American Dental Association has concluded that nHA remineralizes teeth.
It also found that the whitening claim operates as a claim about the product, not merely about an ingredient, and that the breath freshening claim for the mouthwash lacked support because the prebiotic had not been tested in the mouthwash as formulated. Essor stated that it strongly disagreed with the conclusion but would comply with the recommendations.
Which Boka Advertising Claims Were Challenged?
Three categories of claims were recommended for discontinuance. The first was the remineralization family, including statements that the toothpaste remineralizes teeth, remineralizes enamel and helps fortify the surface of teeth. The second was the claim that Boka toothpaste whitens teeth, which the division reviewed on request even though it had not been the subject of the original challenge.
The third was the mouthwash claim that its prebiotic helps maintain a healthy microbiome so that users enjoy fresher breath, which rested on one laboratory study and three studies in people that did not test the Boka mouthwash itself.
The finding that Boka may truthfully say its toothpastes contain nano-hydroxyapatite was not disturbed. These recommendations concern advertising substantiation. They are not findings that the products are unsafe, and they do not create a right to compensation for purchasers.
Does Boka Toothpaste Contain Heavy Metals?
Heavy metals have become the most emotionally charged part of the Boka discussion, but the legal significance of the available information is limited. It is important to distinguish a laboratory report from a regulatory finding or a court ruling.
Reported Findings About Lead, Arsenic, and Mercury
In 2025, an independent consumer advocacy project called Lead Safe Mama published results from community-funded third-party laboratory testing of dozens of toothpastes. According to its published chart, the Boka Ela Mint toothpaste tested positive for lead at about 32 parts per billion, mercury at about 10 parts per billion and arsenic at about 21 parts per billion. The Boka Kids Orange Cream toothpaste was reported positive for lead at about 27 parts per billion and mercury at about 8 parts per billion. Law firm marketing pages have repeated these findings in describing their investigations. These figures come from a single advocacy organization testing individual product samples, not from a regulator, a peer-reviewed study or a court record.
The same chart reported detectable metals in many other toothpastes, including some conventional fluoride products, and showed mercury in nearly half of the 51 products tested at that time. The project itself acknowledged that the Boka kids product was legal under current FDA standards while arguing that any detectable lead is undesirable.
What Do These Findings Mean for Consumers?
For most readers, the practical question is whether trace metals create a legal claim or a health problem. On the legal side, the answer today is that no court filing alleging heavy metal contamination in Boka toothpaste was found in the sources reviewed. Federal law does not set an enforceable limit for lead in toothpaste.
The FDA issued a draft guidance in 2016 recommending a maximum of 10 parts per million of lead as an impurity in lip products and externally applied cosmetics, but that guidance is nonbinding and is not specific to toothpaste. The reported Boka figures, expressed in parts per billion, are far lower than that benchmark, although advocates argue that no level of lead exposure is safe.
Congress also expanded FDA oversight of cosmetics through the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022, which includes safety substantiation and adverse event reporting requirements. In California, Proposition 65 requires warnings for certain exposures to listed chemicals such as lead, and it is enforced partly through private notices of violation, so heavy metal claims are sometimes pursued through that route.
On the health side, whether a given trace level matters depends on factors such as how much toothpaste is swallowed, the age of the user and total exposure from other sources. Parents of young children who are concerned should raise the question with a pediatrician or dentist rather than rely on a website.
Is There a Boka Toothpaste Settlement or Compensation?
Readers often search for a settlement because law firm pages and aggregator sites imply that money may be available. For Boka, the verified record does not support that expectation.
Has Boka Agreed to Pay a Settlement?
No settlement involving Boka toothpaste was found in court records or in any official announcement. The Garcia case ended with a voluntary dismissal, and the docket does not show a court-approved class settlement. The advertising decisions do not involve payments, because the National Advertising Division and the National Advertising Review Board do not award damages or refunds to consumers. Pages that describe settlement amounts, claim deadlines or payout estimates for Boka should be treated as unreliable unless they point to a court-approved settlement website and a case number that can be checked on the docket.
Can Consumers Get a Refund or File a Claim?
There is currently no official claim form for Boka purchasers because there is no class settlement to administer. Consumers should be wary of any site asking for personal or payment information to register for a supposed Boka payout. A buyer who is dissatisfied or who was billed unexpectedly can ask the company directly for a refund, dispute the charge with the card issuer, or consult a lawyer about individual remedies.
Boka’s terms of service direct disputes to individual arbitration and exclude class proceedings, while preserving the option of small claims court for qualifying claims after written notice. Whether those provisions are enforceable in a particular situation depends on the facts and the governing law, including the Federal Arbitration Act at 9 U.S.C. section 1 and following and the Supreme Court’s decision in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion from 2011, so a person with a significant claim should seek individualized advice.
What Should Boka Toothpaste Customers Do Now?
The most useful steps are practical ones that protect your money and your ability to act if the situation changes.
Review Your Subscription and Billing History
Because the only filed case concerned automatic renewals, subscription customers should check their order history and card statements for recurring charges they did not expect. Boka’s help center describes cancelling by logging in to the account, opening the section for managing subscriptions and choosing to cancel, and the subscription can be paused instead if preferred.
Federal law, including the Restore Online Shoppers’ Confidence Act at 15 U.S.C. sections 8401 to 8405, requires clear disclosure of terms and consent for online negative option charges, and California’s Automatic Renewal Law adds further requirements for California consumers. If you were charged after a cancellation or without understanding that a subscription had been created, contact the company in writing and keep a copy.
Keep Purchase Records and Check Official Legal Updates
Keep order confirmations, receipts, screenshots of product pages and any customer service messages, since these are the documents that would matter if a claim process ever opened. To track the legal situation, rely on primary sources. The federal PACER system and the free CourtListener archive show federal dockets, the Los Angeles Superior Court website shows California filings, and the BBB National Programs decision library publishes the advertising rulings. If a lawyer contacts you or you are considering joining an investigation, remember that lawyer advertising is not a court notice, and nothing is owed to you simply because a firm is collecting names.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there a class action lawsuit against Boka toothpaste?
One class action, Garcia v. Essor Group, concerned subscription renewals and was dismissed with prejudice in December 2025. No active class action over the toothpaste’s ingredients or claims was verified.
Did Boka lose the Procter & Gamble advertising challenge?
Yes, in an advertising review sense. In 2025 the NAD and then the NARB recommended that Essor stop its remineralization, whitening and mouthwash prebiotic claims, and Essor said it would comply, but these were not court rulings.
Does Boka toothpaste contain lead or mercury?
Independent 2025 testing by Lead Safe Mama reported trace lead and mercury in two Boka products. These are advocacy group results, not a regulatory or court finding.
Is there a Boka toothpaste settlement I can claim?
No settlement or official claim form for Boka toothpaste was found in court records. Treat any site promising payouts with caution.
Who owns Boka toothpaste?
Boka is sold by Essor Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation that sells through boka.com.
Final Thoughts
The Boka toothpaste lawsuit story is best understood as three separate matters rather than one case. A single consumer class action focused on subscription billing was filed in 2025 and dismissed with prejudice within weeks of reaching federal court. A competitor’s challenge produced two advertising rulings in 2025 that recommended Essor drop its remineralization, whitening and mouthwash prebiotic claims, which the company said it would do while disagreeing with the outcome.
And independent heavy metal test reports have fueled law firm investigations, although no court filing based on them was found. No court has found that Boka toothpaste is unsafe, and no settlement is available to claim. Readers who want certainty should check primary court records, keep their purchase documents, and speak with a qualified attorney about their own circumstances, since this article is general information and not legal advice.
