1. Introduction

For more than a century, Listerine has stood as a household name, synonymous with killing germs and maintaining a healthy mouth. In pop culture and daily routines alike, Listerine’s swirling blue liquid is portrayed as an essential step after brushing—offering fresh breath and claiming to help reduce gingivitis.

Yet in a recent lawsuit, Plaintiff Paige Vasseur paints a drastically different picture. The legal complaint asserts that daily use of Listerine Cool Mint Antiseptic Mouthwash—a staple product for millions—leads to the proliferation of Fusobacterium nucleatum (“F. nucleatum”) and Streptococcus anginosus (“S. anginosus”). Studies cited in the lawsuit suggest these bacteria can cause severe infections and are “closely associated with multiple potentially deadly cancers, including oral cancer, head & neck cancer, colorectal cancer, pancreatic cancer, esophageal cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, and breast cancer.”

The mouthwash is sold without warning consumers of these potential cancer risks. The label does caution users not to swallow it and to keep it away from children under 12, but nowhere does it indicate that a consumer using the product exactly as intended—twice daily, 30 seconds each rinse—could be fostering the growth of dangerous bacteria. In short, the allegations suggest the mouthwash may be creating the very harm it promises to eliminate.

Why would such a massive consumer product, marketed under brands widely recognized for their supposed corporate ethics and corporate social responsibility, fail to disclose an alleged increased risk of cancer-causing bacteria? The lawsuit contends that it boils down to profits over consumer safety, fueled by an environment in which big corporations can skirt meaningful government oversight. This is especially relevant in an era shaped by neoliberal capitalism, where deregulation and the drive for short-term gains commonly overshadow public health warnings.

In the sections that follow, we’ll delve into the heart of these allegations and place them in the context of corporate accountability battles and the broader landscape of economic fallout that threatens communities when large corporations allegedly ignore known safety risks.

---

2. Corporate Intent Exposed

In any products liability or consumer-protection case, the concept of “corporate intent” typically hinges on what the defendant corporation knew, how long they knew it, and what actions they took (or failed to take) in response. In this lawsuit, the complaint alleges that Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. and Kenvue Inc. either knew—or should have known—about scientific findings linking daily Listerine Cool Mint usage to bacterial overgrowth associated with deadly diseases.

Allegations of Knowledge and Concealment

• Scientific Studies: The complaint cites a study indicating that after three months of routine usage of Listerine Cool Mint, subjects exhibited a “significant increase” in harmful bacteria such as F. nucleatum and S. anginosus. In the normal marketing of Listerine, these germs might be considered prime targets for elimination. Yet the study apparently found the opposite: a net proliferation of bacteria known to be associated with serious medical conditions, including cancer.
• Extended Testing Claims: The Defendants’ own promotional materials boast that Listerine is “the most extensively tested OTC mouthwash,” including more than 50 clinical trials. The lawsuit infers that given Johnson & Johnson’s robust internal testing, the company had ample opportunity to detect the risk of harmful bacterial proliferation. This raises a question: if the company truly tested the product so thoroughly, how could they remain oblivious to these results?
• Failure to Update Labels: Citing the FDCA and FDA regulations, the complaint stresses that manufacturers are obligated to revise warnings or labels when new evidence suggests a product might pose a serious health hazard. However, as alleged, Listerine’s labels do not mention bacterial proliferation or potential cancer risk. Instead, they emphasize the mouthwash’s efficacy in “killing 99% of germs.” This unqualified marketing message, the lawsuit argues, effectively conceals the product’s actual risk.

This alleged strategy of “if we don’t talk about it, it doesn’t exist” has been a recurring theme in similar consumer lawsuits targeting big businesses. Historically, there have been a myriad of controversies in industries from tobacco to pharmaceuticals where corporate documents or internal research suggested an awareness of health hazards well before warnings ever reached consumers.

Profit Over Precaution?

Neoliberal capitalism, with its relentless focus on maximizing shareholder value, often sets the stage for corporate strategies that appear to prioritize sales and market share above all else. For the Plaintiff and her attorneys, the impetus behind concealing or downplaying these bacterial hazards is fairly straightforward: money.

The complaint notes that mouthwash is a multi-billion-dollar market, and brand loyalty is essential. As soon as a key brand is tainted with the specter of serious health risks, sales can plummet. The complaint further asserts that Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. and Kenvue Inc. faced a powerful financial incentive to maintain Listerine’s squeaky-clean image, despite alleged data to the contrary.

This underscores a persistent tension in corporate ethics: On one hand, companies tout their commitment to consumers; on the other hand, they face enormous bottom-line pressures that can allegedly stifle transparency. While the lawsuit remains in the early stages of litigation, the crux of the allegations is that knowledge of the product’s adverse bacterial impact was deliberately omitted from marketing materials so that no shadow would be cast on Listerine’s “99% germ-kill” branding.

Local Communities and Public Health

If these allegations hold true, the practical ramifications for local communities and everyday consumers could be profound. Think of the many vulnerable populations—those with compromised immune systems, the elderly—who rely on additional oral-hygiene measures. According to the complaint, these consumers might have unknowingly increased their risk of severe infections or even certain cancers by incorporating Listerine into their daily regimen.

The lawsuit’s claims illustrate a pattern in which potential corporate corruption or wrongdoing intensifies wealth disparity in American society: Wealthy corporations profit from robust sales while ordinary consumers bear the health and financial burdens if product use leads to expensive medical treatments, lost work time, or emotional distress. In many of these scenarios, the economic fallout can be devastating to families and entire communities, eroding trust in large institutions along the way.

---

3. The Corporate Playbook / How They Got Away with It

Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. and Kenvue Inc. followed a playbook reminiscent of many other high-profile cases in which a product was alleged to have hidden dangers: from big tobacco’s decades of denial regarding smoking and lung cancer, to pharmaceutical controversies over addictive painkillers. While each case differs in product and specifics, a general pattern often emerges: position the item as beneficial, downplay or deny adverse risks, and keep regulators at bay through complex legal or lobbying strategies.

Typical Elements of the “Corporate Playbook”

1. Positive Branding and Ubiquity
   Listerine is a household name. Its marketing campaign revolves around positive language such as “healthier mouth,” “stronger teeth,” and “fresher breath.” By linking the product so intimately with mainstream oral-health routines, the brand achieves near-ubiquity in bathrooms and personal hygiene kits. This widespread trust can create a powerful buffer if any negative data surfaces—consumers often find it hard to believe that a flagship brand might harbor hidden dangers.
2. Selective Science & Claims of “Safety Tests”
   The company’s promotional materials cite decades of robust scientific testing and reference the product’s antiseptic properties, especially the killing of germs that cause plaque and gingivitis. But, according to the lawsuit, the actual story is more nuanced: while Listerine does kill many bacteria, it allegedly simultaneously fosters conditions in which some especially dangerous bacteria can thrive.
3. Regulatory and Legal Maneuvering
   Mouthwash is regulated by the FDA as an over-the-counter (OTC) drug. Once a product is recognized under the FDA’s “Monograph” system, updates to labeling and warnings may be slower or more complicated than one might expect. This can lead to a scenario—exploited by big corporations—where information about newly discovered risks travels slowly from labs to the public. Such inertia can effectively “buy time” while corporations continue marketing.
4. Opaque Public-Health Warnings
   Listerine packaging warns: “Keep out of reach of children under 12 years,” but is silent about the possibility of proliferation of F. nucleatum or S. anginosus. This pattern—providing some limited warnings to appear responsible while omitting the more serious risk—shows up in many product controversies: a partial disclosure that misleads consumers into believing they have all relevant cautionary information.
5. Encouraging Frequent Usage
   Another hallmark of the corporate playbook is encouraging frequent, even daily or twice-daily usage. The lawsuit highlights how the Listerine website states that the product should be used for 30 seconds, twice daily, to enjoy optimal benefits. If indeed the product fosters harmful bacterial overgrowth with repeated use, a recommended daily habit can be catastrophic.

The Invisible “Cost-Saving” Tactics

Beyond the outward marketing lies another dynamic: companies often stand to benefit from not conducting or disclosing certain safety studies. Comprehensive public-safety research can be expensive, and negative findings might prompt a recall or modifications that reduce profit margins. Allegedly, ignoring or burying data ensures that these “costs” remain hidden while maintaining or expanding the consumer base.

In the language of neoliberal capitalism, these are “externalities”—the negative social or health consequences that a firm does not pay for directly. Instead, consumers, healthcare systems, and insurers shoulder those costs in the form of higher medical bills, lost productivity, and potential emotional distress. From a purely profit-driven standpoint, there is little incentive to highlight or correct a problem unless a critical mass of legal, financial, or reputational risk emerges.

Parallel Cases of Concealment

To understand how a product so entrenched in daily life might allegedly carry health risks without broad consumer awareness, consider parallels from the past:

• Tobacco Industry: For decades, tobacco companies touted the idea that smoking was part of a free lifestyle while systematically undermining research showing links to cancer and heart disease.
• Opioid Crisis: Several pharmaceutical companies systematically downplayed the addictive properties of pain medications, leading to an epidemic of abuse and overdose deaths.
• Pesticides and Herbicides: Certain agrochemical firms have faced lawsuits for failing to disclose carcinogenic risks associated with weed-killing products.

Though the allegations against Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. and Kenvue Inc. are unique in their specifics, they echo this larger narrative: corporations under the mandate of profit maximization may minimize or ignore red flags if disclosing them would jeopardize brand image or financial returns.

---

4. The Corporate Profit Equation

At the heart of these allegations is a financial calculus. In a market-driven system, the impetus for product innovation is often overshadowed by the drive for continuous growth and high quarterly earnings. The Plaintiff’s complaint contends that behind the friendly commercials and bright labeling lies a harsh bottom-line truth: the corporate profit equation, in which any consumer’s potential health hazard may be outweighed by the immediate profit from continuing to sell the product unaltered.

Economic Fallout and Wealth Disparity

Listerine Cool Mint is big business. The complaint cites studies showing the broader oral rinse market is valued in the billions of dollars and is projected to grow consistently, fueled by rising consumer disposable income and the desire for convenient health solutions. For Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. and its spin-off Kenvue Inc., mouthwash sales (including Listerine) represent a major revenue stream, shored up by brand recognition and consumer trust.

But if the product’s alleged propensity to foster cancer-causing bacteria proves true, the economic fallout will likely land on consumers in multiple ways:

1. Medical Costs: If even a fraction of longtime Listerine users develop a heightened risk of certain cancers or severe infections, medical interventions could be extensive and expensive. Working-class families and individuals already on tight budgets may be the least able to bear these costs, thus exacerbating wealth disparity.
2. Increased Insurance Premiums: Widespread health issues often result in higher insurance premiums. Over time, entire communities might see rising healthcare costs to cover treatments.
3. Lost Wages and Emotional Distress: Serious illnesses can force people out of work temporarily or permanently, causing financial instability and emotional hardship.

The complaint frames these burdens against the backdrop of corporate greed, arguing that it is ordinary people—households in which Listerine is a routine purchase—who pay the greatest price. They might have believed the product was a net positive for their health, only to discover they may have been paying for their own possible increased risk of disease.

Risk-Benefit Analysis from a Corporate Lens

A cynic might argue that for a corporation under the pressures of neoliberal capitalism, the risk of lawsuits may be seen as just another line item in the cost-benefit ledger. Indeed, some corporations historically concluded that paying potential settlements or legal fees could be cheaper than rethinking an entire product line or issuing an expensive product recall. Whether or not such calculations were made in this instance remains to be seen, but the possibility resonates with many observers in a world where major corporate fiascos—from defective car airbags to toxic children’s toys—often follow a pattern of corporate inaction until public outcry or litigation forces change.

Corporate Social Responsibility as Branding

In an era when many major companies, including Johnson & Johnson, publish lengthy statements about corporate social responsibility, the lawsuit challenges the sincerity of those pledges. The concept of responsibility suggests that a corporation aims to ensure its products and business models do not cause undue harm. But critics argue that lofty corporate mission statements often serve more as PR or marketing devices, offering a veneer of ethics that fails to match the actual product-safety or consumer-protection practices on the ground.

If the allegations in the lawsuit stand, then the real approach to “responsibility” might have been overshadowed by the pursuit of maximizing Listerine’s market share, even when faced with red flags about bacterial overgrowth. These claims point to a fundamental contradiction between the public image a corporation projects and the internal calculations that guide its day-to-day decisions.

---

5. System Failure / Why Regulators Did Nothing

One question inevitably arises when a widely used product is accused of posing serious health risks: Where were the regulators? In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for overseeing the safety and efficacy of over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, including mouthwashes. According to the complaint, the Defendants’ product should not be deemed safe under the FDCA if it fosters a significant health hazard.

The FDA’s OTC Drug Monograph System

The FDA’s OTC Drug Monograph system allows certain products (including many mouthwashes) to be sold without a full New Drug Application, provided they conform to established guidelines regarding active ingredients, labeling, and usage instructions. That system aims to make common, low-risk medications accessible to the public without imposing onerous burdens on manufacturers.

But critics say that the monograph system can become a convenient loophole when new, adverse data arises. The complaint argues that, even if Listerine originally conformed to existing monograph guidelines, manufacturers must update warnings if serious health hazards are discovered. The lawsuit asserts that Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. and Kenvue Inc. failed to do so, effectively rendering the product “misbranded” under the FDCA. Yet regulators apparently took no immediate enforcement action.

Why Regulators Might Have Been Slow to Act

1. Resource Constraints: Agencies like the FDA must oversee thousands of OTC products. Limited resources mean they typically rely on companies to self-report new safety issues. If a company does not ring the alarm bell, the product may not be scrutinized.
2. Regulatory Capture: A phenomenon where regulators, influenced by the industries they regulate, become less motivated to penalize or investigate them rigorously. Whether direct or indirect, these relationships can hamper timely enforcement, especially when a company has significant financial resources and political influence.
3. Complex Scientific Data: The complaint references microbiology studies linking Listerine usage to the proliferation of cancer-causing bacteria. Agencies may require time, independent replication, or additional data to confirm such findings. Meanwhile, the product remains on store shelves.
4. Lobbying and Legislative Hurdles: Large corporations often employ sophisticated lobbying teams. These efforts can shape legislative or regulatory frameworks, delaying or weakening rules that would require stronger consumer protections or labeling.

When Regulation Fails, “Buyer Beware?”

The net effect of these systemic pressures is that everyday consumers may face a “buyer beware” landscape, even when it comes to products that appear, by all outward standards, thoroughly tested and approved. In the Listerine case, the complaint suggests that while some basic warnings do exist (do not swallow, keep away from children), the more serious or emergent risks remain absent from labels.

In a broader sense, this alleged system failure underlines the precariousness of consumer safety when corporations are left to self-police. The lawsuit indicates that the FDA’s reliance on corporate disclosure and the complexity of changing established OTC monographs create a regulatory gap—one that can be exploited by companies under neoliberal capitalism to skirt accountability until forced by public scandal or litigation.

Impact on Communities

Regulatory shortfalls can take a real toll on individuals and communities. If the product indeed causes a bacterial imbalance that puts people at risk for cancers or invasive infections, any delay in public warnings could translate into more suffering for communities. Healthcare systems in low-income areas, already overburdened and underfunded, might struggle to manage an uptick in patients with advanced gastrointestinal or oral cancers. And the time lag in providing adequate consumer warnings—months or years—can be the difference between life and death for some patients.

Again, these patterns point to deeper issues in how wealth disparity interacts with weak regulatory oversight, intensifying the suffering of society’s most vulnerable. When the system fails to intervene, corporate profits continue to grow unabated, while everyday people shoulder the physical and economic costs of undisclosed dangers.

---

6. This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

At this juncture, one might ask: Is the proliferation of harmful bacteria in a commonly used oral rinse an isolated case, or does it tie into a structural phenomenon? The complaint, taken in the context of countless other lawsuits over defective or misleadingly advertised products, points to a disturbing conclusion: this pattern is a feature, not a bug, of how corporate power operates in a neoliberal system.

The Underlying Framework of Neoliberal Capitalism

Neoliberal capitalism is marked by certain hallmarks: privatization, deregulation, and a focus on profit maximization. Companies are incentivized to produce goods and services that generate returns for shareholders, often under time pressures from quarterly earnings reports. This environment can reward aggressive cost-cutting measures, minimal oversight, and borderline deceptive advertising.

When corporations engage in alleged misconduct—like ignoring or concealing negative safety data—critics argue it is not merely an aberration but a logical outcome of a system that prioritizes profits. Within such a context, “corporate social responsibility” can evolve into little more than brand messaging.

Historical Parallels

The lawsuit’s framing is reminiscent of other infamous cases in which companies withheld damaging health-related findings from the public:

• Lead in Gasoline: For decades, corporations producing leaded fuel actively downplayed or denied the negative public-health impacts, despite scientific evidence.
• Big Pharma Opioid Scandals: Corporate marketing campaigns for opioids failed to disclose addiction risks, leading to a national crisis.
• PFAS “Forever Chemicals”: Manufacturers allegedly hid studies showing the toxicity of these compounds, which contaminate drinking water nationwide.

In each of these examples, secrecy, selective data use, and intense lobbying formed a potent combination that stymied early calls for transparency. Consumers, communities, and public health systems bore the brunt of the consequences, while corporations reaped extraordinary profits.

Predatory Elements

The complaint implies that everyday consumers rely heavily on brand reputation, especially for something as intimate as daily mouthwash use. That reliance—“Of course it’s safe; it’s from a well-known company”—is precisely what makes the alleged concealment of cancer-related bacterial proliferation so troubling. People do not expect to face hidden dangers from an OTC product that has been recommended by dental professionals for decades. And if a problem emerges, the “burden of proof” is frequently shifted onto consumers, who must navigate legal hurdles and scientific complexities to hold corporations accountable.

This alleged dynamic exemplifies the notion that some corporations can exploit vulnerabilities in consumer trust and regulatory systems to sustain or expand market share, all while refusing to incorporate changes that might reduce the product’s profitability. According to many critics, this is part and parcel of a system that normalizes—rather than punishes—risk-taking by corporations at the public’s expense.

Ramifications for Corporate Accountability

If the allegations of this lawsuit are validated, Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. and Kenvue Inc. could face significant legal liability—potentially forcing them into a settlement or payout to thousands, even millions, of consumers who unwittingly used a product they believed would protect them from harm, not expose them to it. Beyond monetary damages, there may also be calls for more stringent regulations on labeling and packaging, or for a reevaluation of how FDA monograph updates are handled when new hazards come to light.

Whether such changes materialize remains uncertain. Past patterns show that large corporations often pay settlement amounts that appear enormous on the surface, yet these sums may represent a small fraction of annual profit margins. Some cynics would say that the entire structure is set up so that a big corporation can absorb occasional penalties and keep operating with minimal disruption to its bottom line.

---

7. The PR Playbook of Damage Control

Once allegations like those in the Vasseur class action complaint go public, how might a powerful brand respond? Historically, large corporate players in similar lawsuits have turned to a PR damage-control strategy that follows a predictable arc: official statements of concern, carefully managed disclaimers, and attempts to reassure both consumers and investors—often without admitting wrongdoing.

Anticipated Phases of Response

1. Minimize or Deny
   The first stage often involves rejecting the premise that the product is unsafe. In this instance, the corporations might highlight the mouthwash’s decades of usage and alleged safety track record. They might also argue that the new study’s findings about bacterial proliferation are inconclusive, not replicated widely, or overshadowed by the mouthwash’s other benefits.
2. Deflect Responsibility
   Corporate spokespersons might claim that any negative health outcomes are due to “consumer misuse” or other lifestyle factors. They could say that if individuals rinse for too long, too short, or have underlying conditions, those are the real culprits, not the product itself. Alternatively, they may claim that the bacteria in question are found throughout the oral microbiome and that the mouthwash is not singularly responsible for their existence.
3. Emphasize Minimal Risk
   Even if they concede that some risk exists, corporations often pivot to a stance that says: Yes, there is a possibility of an issue, but it is extremely rare and not conclusively proven. They will highlight the absence of official recall or direct FDA condemnation. This mirrors the public-relations approach of, for instance, the sugar industry or soda manufacturers, who push back against scientific studies linking sugary drinks to obesity by emphasizing the alleged lack of consensus.
4. In-house Studies or “Independent” Panels
   Another tactic may be to commission new research that challenges the findings cited in the complaint. These corporate-funded or corporate-friendly studies could aim to muddy the waters, stating that “the science is inconclusive” or “requires further study.” This can buy corporations time and reduce momentum for immediate regulatory intervention.
5. Settlement without Public Admission of Guilt
   If public pressure or legal developments become too intense, the corporation may eventually negotiate a settlement. Historically, major settlements in product liability suits often arrive with carefully worded language stating that the defendant “denies any wrongdoing” but agrees to provide financial compensation.

Community Relations and CSR Narratives

Simultaneously, Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue Inc. might amplify philanthropic or health-oriented corporate social responsibility campaigns, releasing statements about their commitment to “public health initiatives” or “community partnerships.” This approach can soften public perception, positioning them as overall good corporate citizens despite the ongoing litigation.

Again, this points to the disjunction between corporate self-presentation and actual accountability. As critics point out, a robust CSR façade can distract from real harm. If the product is genuinely exposing millions of Americans to increased cancer risks, then no charitable donations or public-health campaigns can negate the core allegations. Instead, these CSR efforts could be perceived as part of the PR toolkit to maintain brand equity.

---

8. Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

At this final stage, we address the larger question that runs through the entire lawsuit: Is the alleged proliferation of cancer-causing bacteria in a staple mouthwash product just an isolated scandal, or does it illustrate fundamental flaws in how corporations operate under neoliberal capitalism?

For the Plaintiff, the class, and many consumer-advocacy organizations, the real danger lies in how easily public safety can be subordinated to corporate greed. Regardless of whether the allegations in the Vasseur case are ultimately proven in court, the structural issues remain. Companies in a competitive marketplace have strong financial motives to avoid labeling any product as potentially hazardous. Regulators, underfunded and subject to lobbying, may react slowly or not at all to newly emerging data. Consumers, lulled by decades of brand messaging, rarely suspect that such a product could do them harm—until it’s too late.

The Balancing Act: Regulation, Innovation, and Accountability

If we take a step back, it is clear that not every corporate entity commits misconduct, nor is every regulatory agency asleep at the wheel. Indeed, many companies invest heavily in product safety and conduct research ethically. However, the Vasseur complaint underscores the precariousness of that trust. The mouthwash in question is a widely used, over-the-counter product that, for years, boasted a reputation for safety—yet it allegedly harbored a secret risk. This scenario, say critics, is not anomalous but symptomatic of a system in which profit maximization can overshadow corporate social responsibility.

Pathways to Reform

1. Stricter Regulatory Framework: Consumer groups often advocate for stronger FDA oversight of OTC products, mandating more frequent labeling updates when new risks are documented. Critics suggest that automatic triggers—such as peer-reviewed studies or certain adverse-event thresholds—should require reexamination of a product’s monograph.
2. Enhanced Disclosure Requirements: Making the results of corporate-funded safety studies public could shine a light on any negative findings. Similar to how drug companies must disclose clinical-trial data, mouthwash makers might be held to a more robust standard if public health is at stake.
3. Greater Transparency: Advocates argue for public-access databases that detail potential risks discovered in the post-market surveillance of widely used products. This would allow consumers, healthcare professionals, and researchers to act on early warnings, even if corporate marketing does not mention them.
4. Financial Penalties and Criminal Liability: Some propose that if a company is proven to have knowingly concealed evidence of harm, the penalties should be severe enough to deter future misconduct. Without meaningful financial repercussions and the threat of criminal liability for those who authorize deception, corporations may continue to weigh the cost of litigation or fines as a manageable risk.

Unanswered Questions

• Causation vs. Correlation: The complaint points to strong associations between certain bacteria and cancers, yet we lack large-scale, direct evidence proving that Listerine usage alone causes the disease. This is an area that requires more independent scientific inquiry. Regardless, the complaint’s central assertion is that the mouthwash fosters these bacteria, increasing risk.
• Consumer Behavioral Responses: Even if a class action reaches settlement or receives widespread media coverage, do consumers truly alter their buying habits? Or do deeply rooted brand loyalties and strong marketing overshadow the warnings? Historical patterns show that many products remain popular even after serious allegations, especially if the claims are downplayed by the company or overshadowed by new controversies.
• Regulatory Shifts: Will the FDA respond to the lawsuit by revisiting monograph requirements? Or might Congress take up the issue of mouthwash safety labeling? The outcome of this case, and any public outcry it generates, may influence the shape of future reform efforts.

Empathy and Advocacy

What remains indisputable in allegations like these is the human toll. People who prided themselves on being conscientious about oral health may now wonder whether they inadvertently increased their risk for invasive infections and cancer. Families already burdened by medical bills or job insecurity could find themselves facing new financial and health crises.

Consumer advocates, along with social-justice movements, champion the idea that basic health products should not carry undisclosed, life-threatening risks. Advocates call for a system that truly upholds corporate accountability, invests in thorough consumer-safety testing, and enforces transparent labeling. Until such reforms take hold, the lawsuit described here remains an omnipresent reminder of how easily consumer well-being can be undermined in a system that privileges corporate balance sheets over human lives.

---

Reflections on the Bigger Picture

As the Vasseur lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. and Kenvue Inc. moves forward, it offers a sobering lens into how a mainstream healthcare product—Listerine Cool Mint Antiseptic Mouthwash—could allegedly mask potentially grave dangers, all while touting its safety. The complaint’s central claim—that daily, recommended usage of the product fosters the proliferation of Fusobacterium nucleatum and Streptococcus anginosus, bacteria closely linked to deadly infections and multiple forms of cancer—upends the well-crafted marketing narratives that have long surrounded Listerine.

At stake is not merely one brand’s reputation, but the broader question of how effectively government agencies protect the public from undisclosed hazards. The lawsuit thrusts into the spotlight the interplay of regulatory capture, neoliberal capitalism, profit-driven motives, and the alarming gaps in consumer knowledge. The economic fallout from such allegations can ripple far beyond any single group of plaintiffs, affecting local communities, healthcare systems, and fueling a cycle of wealth disparity in which corporations profit while individuals bear the burden of medical bills and uncertainty.

Will the class action alter corporate behavior? History suggests that while some suits lead to meaningful labeling changes or hefty settlements, systemic change remains elusive. Yet each new scandal and legal battle layers onto the growing public distrust of large corporations—exposing the dangers to public health that lurk behind slick advertisements and familiar brand names.

For consumers who have purchased and regularly used Listerine, these questions are far from academic. If the allegations hold weight, millions could have unknowingly exposed themselves to an increased risk of severe diseases. Against the might of corporate power, class actions offer a path for ordinary people to unite, seeking both answers and accountability. In the battle of corporate power vs. public interest, the ultimate outcome often depends on whether legal systems—and the courts—can effectively counterbalance corporate strategies of concealment, profit, and damage control.

In that sense, the path forward is fraught with challenges: We must sift through complex scientific evidence, demand rigorous regulatory oversight, and insist that corporate giants fulfill their purported commitments to social responsibility. Only then can consumers truly be assured that the products they bring into their homes every day are as safe as their marketing claims suggest.

---