[1] Introduction

Few things spark moral outrage more than the idea of a corporation knowingly endangering children. Yet, according to a recent class action complaint filed against Hello Products LLC, that’s precisely what they did. The central claim is both straightforward and shocking: Hello Products, maker of a “Kids Fluoride Rinse” in flavors like “Wild Strawberry” and “Unicorn Splash,” allegedly targeted children—particularly preschoolers under age six—even though established scientific consensus and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines say fluoride mouth wash is not safe for this young demographic. The complaint draws from decades of data and regulatory standards. It claims that Hello’s product, loaded with sweet, candy-like flavoring and a fluoride concentration on par with adult mouth wash, tempts very young children to swallow a substance that regulators believe should not even be marketed to them.

This reveals not just negligence but the very worst of corporate misconduct. It highlights a reality in which profit-maximizing strategies—especially under neoliberal capitalism—can override basic public health considerations. Plaintiffs say the brand effectively placed a drug into the marketplace disguised as a fruity treat, allegedly failing to follow labeling regulations and ignoring well-known dangers. Most damning, the complaint outlines a scenario in which Hello’s own marketing—“tastes magical,” “tastes so delicious,” “tastes like rainbows and sunshine”—conveys a sense of safety and fun, nowhere emphasizing the real hazards if a preschooler accidentally swallows large amounts of fluoride.

In the nearly 100 pages of legal filings and exhibits, the complaint reveals a pattern of corporate behavior that the Plaintiffs characterize as orchestrated deception. Hello Products did not “prominently” include the FDA-required statement “IMPORTANT: Read directions for proper use” on its packaging. At the same time, it liberally used child-oriented imagery and feel-good copy to sell mouthwash to unsuspecting parents. The complaint underscores that federal law deems fluoride mouth rinses too dangerous for children under six; yet Hello’s packaging and branding, the suit alleges, gave caregivers the false impression the product was tailor-made for kids of that very age.

These revelations echo broader systemic issues under late-stage or neoliberal capitalism: deregulation, regulatory capture, profit-driven marketing schemes, corporate corruption, and the wide gulf between stated “corporate social responsibility” and actual practice. Particularly troubling here is the intersection of marketing a dangerous product directly to an impressionable audience while seemingly flouting labeling laws designed to safeguard public health. Parents from different states have come together, demanding accountability. They allege they would never have purchased this product had they known the risks, or that the FDA and other health agencies explicitly caution against using fluoride mouth wash in children below six years old.

In the sections that follow, we examine how the Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse fiasco ties into a broader industrial pattern. We delve into how corporations, in the quest to maximize shareholder profits, sometimes utilize “kid-friendly” branding to promote products that can have severe consequences if used improperly. We explore the complaint’s details—like the repeated references to “naturally friendly” or “vegan” mouthwash, and the illusions to safe, non-toxic formula that conveniently omit mention that a toddler ingesting half the bottle might experience severe toxic effects. We then situate these allegations within the continuum of corporate wrongdoing that thrives in environments with weak or inconsistently enforced regulations.

To provide structure, this long-form investigation is divided into eleven sections, each shedding light on various facets of this case and the deeper socioeconomic and public-health issues it reflects. We begin by exposing the corporate intent set forth in the complaint. We move on to the question of how corporations seemingly “get away with it.” From there, we address the economic fallout and systemic failings that allow such behavior to persist, culminating in pathways for reform that might empower consumer advocacy and impose real corporate accountability.

---

[2] Corporate Intent Exposed

At the heart of the class action are the explicit allegations about Hello Products’ marketing strategy and labeling decisions. Plaintiffs’ complaint details how Hello’s Kids Fluoride Rinse—offered in flavors like “Wild Strawberry” and “Unicorn Splash (bubble gum)”—employs a host of child-enticing cues. The brand uses playful colors and whimsical phrases such as “tastes magical” and “tastes like rainbows and sunshine,” presumably aiming to engage a child’s imagination. Kids love candy, so the formula’s bubble-gum or strawberry taste fosters the impression that this rinse is a sweet treat, not a regulated drug.

Yet, if these bright cartoons and flavor descriptors seem harmless, the complaint insists otherwise. The use of candy-like flavors significantly heightens the risk that a child will swallow fluoride—and that’s precisely the crux of the problem. Federal health agencies such as the FDA, CDC, and the American Dental Association (ADA) are quite clear: children under age six should not be using fluoride rinse at all, unless specifically directed by a dentist. The reason is simple: a young child’s swallowing reflex is not well developed, and ingesting fluoride mouth wash can result in both acute toxicity (upset stomach, vomiting, and in extreme cases death) and chronic conditions like dental fluorosis, a permanent mottling and discoloration of teeth.

From the legal complaint:

• The FDA has a final monograph stating that “fluoride mouth wash are contraindicated for children under six years of age on an over-the-counter basis.”
• The ADA, CDC, WHO, and the American Academy of Pediatrics have echoed the same guidance: do not use fluoride mouth wash in preschool-age children because of the likelihood of ingestion.
• Hello’s labeling: in bold, child-friendly type and phrases, “tastes so delicious they’ll rush to rinse” or “wild strawberry natural flavor,” is precisely the style of marketing that the complaint alleges entices parents and children to use the product far too freely.

Moreover the front label does not contain the legally mandated statement, “IMPORTANT: Read directions for proper use.” This statement is explicitly required by FDA regulations. This omission is not a minor technicality but a critical design choice that helps perpetuate the impression that the rinse is as benign as a sweet beverage or a standard kids’ bath product.

One of the more striking allegations is that Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse actually contains the same concentration of fluoride as adult mouth wash (0.05% sodium fluoride). Because this concentration is known to be inappropriate for developing children, the complaint asserts that the product design and marketing inevitably lead to an increased risk that young ones, whose swallowing reflexes are underdeveloped, will ingest toxic amounts.

In effect, the complaint shows a mismatch between the actual recommended usage and the label’s unspoken invitation. The brand’s own marketing copies frequently mention “your kiddos,” “little brushers,” or “tastes magical” in ways that arguably highlight a casual, everyday usage. No disclaimers appear upfront to warn parents that a mouthful of the rinse swallowed by a toddler can cause stomach flu–like symptoms or worse.

This goes beyond mere marketing exuberance, Plaintiffs claim, because the instructions mandated by FDA for safe usage—like “consult a dentist for children under age 6” and “do not swallow”—are relegated to the fine print, overshadowed by colorful, large-type brand slogans. And, some versions of the label are printed in a small, faintly contrasting font that’s hard to read.

The complaint’s narrative suggests that Hello Products either ignored or chose to violate these FDA standards with full knowledge that the brand was courting preschoolers. Online reviews posted directly on Hello’s own website provide examples where parents mention using this mouth wash for children as young as two or three. Consumers reported letting toddlers rinse with the product, all but confirming that the marketing impression is consistent with actual usage—and that Hello must have been aware of this phenomenon.

In terms of corporate intent, the complaint frames Hello’s approach as a conscious strategy: the brand stands to make significant profits by entering a largely untapped “toddler rinse” market, capitalizing on the current craze for “natural,” “vegan,” “kid-friendly” products. By injecting candy-like flavors and whimsical labeling, they differentiate themselves from the more sober adult mouth wash. Plaintiffs also point out that Hello is owned by Colgate-Palmolive, a giant in oral care that presumably has decades of experience with regulatory compliance. Hello’s knowledge of these guidelines—and the alleged decision to circumvent or ignore them—shows how commercial gain took precedence over public health.

---

[3] The Corporations Get Away With It

Lawsuits like this one don’t exist in a vacuum. They raise an obvious question: How do corporations get away with marketing something to children that official agencies say children should not use? One possible answer, laid out in the complaint, is the concept of “misbranding.” Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), over-the-counter fluoride mouth rinses must meet certain labeling standards. The complaint emphasizes that any omission or misleading representation that downplays risks can constitute misbranding, rendering the product illegal to sell under federal law.

Yet historically, corporations—especially large ones or those with corporate parents—may skirt around these rules by exploiting the pace of regulatory enforcement. The FDA is notoriously strapped for resources, tasked with overseeing a vast array of products. In such an environment, it often relies on post-hoc compliance checks or complaints to identify violations. Companies that sense gaps in monitoring might push the boundaries of acceptable labeling, hoping that no direct enforcement action occurs before they’ve reaped substantial profits.

Moreover, the phenomenon known as “regulatory capture” can come into play when industry exerts undue influence over the very agencies meant to oversee it. While the complaint does not specifically allege that Hello or its corporate parent bribed regulators, it does allude to the broader dynamic that large corporations have the power to influence, lobby, and otherwise shape the regulatory environment to their advantage. In a scenario in which the regulatory system has to rely significantly on consumer complaints, it’s often far too late—children might have been exposed for years before a serious investigation even begins.

Another dimension, also referenced in the complaint, is the near-ubiquity of consumer confusion around fluoride products. People see “fluoride” as beneficial for teeth. Indeed, public health campaigns often champion fluoridated water for cavity prevention. Because many parents and caregivers only hear the upside (i.e., “fluoride is good for teeth”), it’s easy for them to assume that a kids’ fluoride mouth wash is obviously beneficial from infancy onward. This confusion benefits Hello Products if parents buy into the brand’s message that its kids-friendly rinse is “naturally friendly,” skipping the fine print entirely.

Given these factors—patchy enforcement, potential regulatory capture, and consumer confusion—this alleged misconduct can persist. By the time the truth emerges, thousands of families may have purchased the product. In short, the brand “gets away with it” so long as sales continue to roll in and official crackdowns remain slow, underfunded, or overshadowed by corporate messaging.

---

[4] The Cost of Doing Business

As alleged in the complaint, the economic logic is straightforward. Developing an alternate rinse that adheres more strictly to safety requirements for very young children would likely involve additional testing, clearer disclaimers, or perhaps a fluoride-free formula. That might diminish the brand’s unique selling proposition: “anti-cavity mouthwash that tastes like candy.”

From a pure profit-maximization standpoint, marketing an “all-natural,” “vegan,” fruit-flavored rinse for children is a niche brimming with potential. Parents are bombarded with kids’ products sporting “non-toxic” or “natural” labels—think of the popularity of organic baby food, BPA-free bottles, or chemical-free diapers. The intangible “peace of mind” factor is priceless to many. So, if Hello can brand its mouth wash in a way that suggests it’s gentle, safe, and cheerful, it taps into a lucrative market of parents who want premium, “clean” solutions for their kids’ oral care.

The complaint details that this approach captures a wide customer base, especially those who might check a label for “no dyes, no SLS, no brainer” but are unaware that the fluoride content itself is the real hazard. Under that logic, any legal or regulatory risk might be considered a “cost of doing business.” If the brand can generate enough market share and brand loyalty, the occasional lawsuit might be cheaper than revamping the entire labeling approach.

Such calculations reveal a cynical side of neoliberal capitalism, in which powerful market incentives push corporations to race after new consumer demographics. The brand presumably invests in bright packaging and social-media marketing, gathering glowing product reviews from parents who see zero disclaimers or consider them minimal. Meanwhile, the potential health hazard for children—ranging from mild stomach upset to serious, life-altering dental fluorosis or acute fluoride poisoning—becomes just another externality. Parents footing medical bills or dealing with anxious midnight calls to poison control centers experience real consequences, all while the brand’s balance sheet remains robust.

The complaint also cites the emotional strain on families. Although intangible, the stress and possible guilt a parent might feel if they unknowingly gave their toddler an unsafe product is significant. Critically, these costs fall entirely on consumers, not the corporation. In purely economic terms, the brand reaps the reward of big sales while shunting the liability or fallout onto unsuspecting households and broader society.

Adding to the complexity, the impetus for lawsuits typically arises only after a pattern of harm or wide consumer outrage emerges. But as the complaint notes, many parents might not realize that their child’s stomach trouble or mild dental discoloration is connected to the product. They might chalk it up to a virus. They may never suspect that Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse was the culprit. That underreporting of adverse events reduces the brand’s exposure to lawsuits or consumer backlash, at least in the short term.

---

[5] Systemic Failures

Under neoliberal capitalism, deregulation has become a watchword. Government agencies, under political pressure, may reduce oversight on consumer goods, placing more trust in the marketplace to self-correct. The assumption: if a product is truly harmful or mislabeled, consumer backlash will lead to poor sales, forcing a corporate pivot. But the allegations in this case suggest that idealized free-market correction simply doesn’t happen soon enough.

The complaint references how key stakeholders—like the FDA, the ADA, the CDC, the WHO—publicly discourage the use of fluoride mouth rinse in children under six. One might assume that such a consensus would immediately block any company from marketing to that demographic, but no. The complaint contends that Hello’s packaging lumps all children together, from toddler to tween, with cheerful disregard for age-specific hazards.

How could a brand do that in 2025 America? For one, the lawsuit posits that if no government watchdog sees or stops it soon enough, the brand can continue distributing these products to drugstores and supermarkets nationwide. Because parents tend to trust that if something is on the shelf, it must be safe, the regulatory system’s slow response compounds the misinformation.

Another failure is that labeling rules, though on the books, can be complex, and enforcement is often inconsistent. A mouth wash that is “technically” permissible for children age six and older can get rebranded with fun pictures and flavors appealing to toddlers—yet remain on store shelves unchallenged. If the brand fails to “prominently” display legally required statements, that becomes an FDA compliance issue, but the FDA must detect the violation and act.

These systemic gaps illustrate what smart people call “regulatory capture,” but even short of that, ordinary bureaucratic inertia allows a profit-seeking entity to outmaneuver public-health guidelines. It’s a system in which more corporate-friendly policies and frameworks can overshadow rigorous scrutiny. This environment also fosters the idea that if a company can create a marketing angle that sells, the burden is on consumers to read the fine print and ask doctors or dentists—assuming they have the time, resources, or awareness to do so.

In short, the lawsuit situates the Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse fiasco as a microcosm of how weakened regulatory systems can fail to protect vulnerable populations (in this case, very young children). The complaint calls for a renewed conversation about corporate accountability, especially as brands discover new ways to frame adult-strength products as perfectly “kid-friendly” without the overhead of changing the fundamental formulation.

---

[6] This Pattern of Predation Is a Feature, Not a Bug

Scandals like this one—where a product is sold in a manner that flouts public safety guidelines—are neither exceptional nor accidental. They are the predictable outcome of an economic system that prizes growth, profits, and shareholder return above all else.

In that context, marketing a specialized fluoride rinse to an untapped or less-regulated demographic (preschoolers) might be seen, from a purely commercial standpoint, as a brilliant expansion. The broader system is set up to reward such expansions because corporations are under constant pressure to deliver results. If one brand does not push boundaries, a competitor might.

The complaint’s allegations of misbranding, insufficient labeling, and “candy-like” flavors for a dangerous product highlight deeper corporate strategies that can be recognized across various industries. We see parallels in the marketing of sugary cereals “fortified with vitamins and minerals,” e-cigarettes with “fun” flavors alluring to teenagers, or prescription opioids pitched as “non-addictive.” Although the details differ, the underlying dynamic is the same: hooking new or especially vulnerable consumers (often children) by removing the friction or negative connotations of the real risks involved.

From the vantage point of corporate accountability, the Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse saga demonstrates a recurring theme: that these are not merely “bad apples” in the orchard of capitalism but a structural issue inherent in how markets reward certain behaviors. When corporate boards and investors demand year-on-year growth, marketing expansions into risky territory become tempting.

Even if the lawsuit ends with Hello Products paying a settlement or changing its labeling, that resolution may be viewed internally as the cost of having achieved brand recognition and initial market penetration. Repeatedly, corporations can rebrand or pivot, using fresh campaigns to re-capture an audience under a slightly new guise. A small settlement or injunction does not necessarily fix the fundamental profit logic that spurs this kind of predatory approach.

This is why the complaint places so much emphasis on the corporate parent, Colgate-Palmolive, which presumably knows well that the ADA and FDA do not recommend fluoride rinse for children under six. It’s a cautionary tale about how multinational corporate infrastructure can shield smaller sub-brands, letting them operate in ways that raise fewer red flags until a public lawsuit or media exposé emerges.

---

[7] The PR Playbook of Damage Control

Should Hello Products come under more intense public scrutiny, the complaint suggests it might deploy the typical corporate PR maneuvers. Indeed, large corporations under fire for alleged wrongdoing often rely on a well-worn playbook:

1. Minimal Acknowledgment of Harm: They may emphasize that the product is “generally safe for older children,” pointing to the standard disclaimers in the small print as if that alone absolves them of mislabeling.
2. Blame the Consumer: The brand could point fingers at parents, arguing that “consumers should always read the full instructions” and that any misuse is on them. The PR line might mention that if parents had just read the directions to “consult a dentist for children under six,” none of this would be an issue.
3. Highlighting Unrelated Good Deeds: If the brand invests in environmental initiatives or philanthropic campaigns, it may double down on that messaging to overshadow the lawsuit. We see this tactic often: a pivot to “Look at how green and charitable we are.”
4. Technicalities and Partial Label Changes: They might reprint the labels in a slightly bigger font, add disclaimers, or even rename the product to appear more aligned with compliance—without truly changing the overarching marketing approach.
5. Settling Quietly: In many class action suits, corporations might choose to settle out of court with non-disclosure or limited publicity. That settlement could offer minimal compensation to parents while requiring Hello to “update labeling.” But these updates might remain obscure or overshadowed by new marketing messages.

The real problem is not that the brand forgot a single line of text on the front. It’s that the entire marketing approach systematically misleads parents into thinking the rinse is child-friendly—“unicorns and sunshine.” So a superficial fix will not address the underlying hazard.

As far as reputational fallout is concerned, Hello’s brand identity is built on a “naturally friendly” ethos, claiming it uses no alcohol, dyes, or artificial sweeteners. If parents begin to perceive that the brand’s “friendly” messaging actually concealed a serious health risk, trust could erode quickly. Nevertheless, if the product remains profitable in the short term, the brand might push forward with its standard spin.

---

[8] Corporate Power vs. Public Interest

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is the notion that corporations have obligations beyond profit-making: they must account for social, environmental, and public-health impacts. But the allegations in this lawsuit highlight a gap between lip-service to CSR and real-world marketing decisions. The complaint states that Hello’s packaging touts “vegan,” “thoughtfully formulated,” “no brainer,” and “tastes so delicious” as if those descriptors confirm that it is specifically safe for very young kids.

Yet the heart of CSR is a deeper question: does a company weigh the potential harm of a product against the revenue gained, and then take action consistent with consumer well-being? The allegations suggest Hello Products did not. If true, the brand placed its bottom line above the known science on fluoride toxicity for young children.

From a broader lens, this is where corporate power collides with the public interest. Parents or caregivers have limited time to investigate each product’s compliance with FDA rules. They assume that if it’s labeled “Kids Fluoride Rinse,” and if it’s on the shelf in the children’s oral-care section, it must be both safe and recommended for that age group. This assumption is precisely what the brand allegedly exploits, overshadowing the warnings mandated by government guidelines.

At a systemic level, that power imbalance can only be remedied through robust consumer protection laws or regulatory enforcement. The complaint is an attempt to harness the legal system to re-balance that power and hold the brand accountable. If a settlement or verdict punishes Hello severely, it may deter future misconduct—but only if the cost is substantial enough to outweigh the financial gains made by marketing to preschoolers.

Left to their own devices, many corporations will always default to decisions that maximize shareholder returns. That’s precisely why so many industries push the line, from Big Tobacco once marketing “low-tar” cigarettes to Big Pharma’s questionable opioid claims. In the modern era, the corporate motive remains constant: harness the aspirational or gullible consumer, push the product aggressively, and manage the negative press once lawsuits arise.

---

[9] The Human Toll on Workers and Communities

While the suit focuses on the immediate danger to children, it’s also valuable to place these allegations in the context of how such corporate conduct can affect local communities and even the workforce behind the product. For instance, if enough children are harmed or enough parents feel deceived, reputational damage can hurt sales. Workers at Hello Products or at retail stores might face layoffs if the brand sees a downturn. This is a cruel irony: the brand’s marketing strategy, if proven harmful and deceptive, could boomerang onto employees who had no say in management’s labeling decisions.

On a community level, any spike in pediatric fluoride ingestion calls to poison control centers can strain local health resources. Pediatricians and emergency rooms in lower-income communities (where families might rely on cheaper, easily available consumer products) can be especially taxed if children present with vomiting or other acute fluoride toxicity symptoms.

Moreover, the complaint describes the risk of dental fluorosis. In severe cases, families might face the burden of paying for costly cosmetic dentistry that is not always covered by insurance. This imposes yet another strain on lower-income households, increasing wealth disparity by shifting the burden of corporate decisions onto those least able to afford it.

There’s also the intangible social cost: parents might blame themselves for “not reading the fine print” or “not knowing the product was dangerous.” Guilt, stress, or a child’s potential lifelong tooth discoloration are real burdens that can affect a family’s sense of well-being. The complaint underscores that even mild enamel mottling (dental fluorosis) is cosmetically permanent. Children could face teasing or social stigma in certain contexts.

These costs—emotional, financial, and communal—highlight the fundamental injustice if a corporation peddles an adult-strength fluoride rinse to preschoolers as if it were fruit punch. The brand reaps profit and brand recognition. Parents and communities risk health problems, pediatric ER visits, or years of self-consciousness over discolored teeth. Such is the deeper human toll that extends beyond any single lawsuit.

---

[10] Global Trends in Corporate Accountability

What’s happening with Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse is hardly an isolated phenomenon. Across the globe, debates about water fluoridation, toothpaste warnings, and children’s safety from chemical ingestion have continued for decades. From Europe to Asia, public health agencies wrestle with how to regulate marketing that targets children with chemical-laden products.

One global trend is the rise of stricter labeling laws—some countries require bold “NOT FOR CHILDREN UNDER SIX” statements on children’s oral-care products containing fluoride. Others have considered banning certain flavors entirely to reduce the chance that children might swallow them. However, these measures vary widely. Where neoliberal policies dominate, corporate lobbying can dilute or delay such regulations.

At the same time, consumer advocacy groups worldwide are pushing for more robust labeling and safer formulations. NGOs in Europe, for instance, have demanded that kids’ oral-care products meet very strict packaging guidelines, sometimes requiring child-resistant caps or large front-label warnings. The impetus is to treat a dangerous ingestible product with the same caution that one might treat over-the-counter pills.

But international comparisons also reveal the United States has historically been a significant battleground for corporate power. Many American corporations, seeking to expand globally, test new marketing angles in the U.S. first. If the regulatory environment is found lacking, they can set a precedent that influences how the product is sold abroad.

Class actions, like the one at hand, become one of the few available recourses for outraged consumers. They represent a form of collective pushback, forcing corporate transgressors into court. And when these lawsuits attract media coverage, they can spur lawmakers to re-examine whether consumer protections—especially for children—are robust enough.

In the context of global activism, an important question is whether mandatory uniform labeling might ever become an international standard. Because fluoride can be beneficial for adults yet detrimental if misused by children, there’s a built-in complexity that unscrupulous marketing can exploit. The Hello case dramatizes that tension, showing how easy it is to repackage a potent chemical as a “fun,” “magic,” “delicious” treat.

---

[11] Pathways for Reform and Consumer Advocacy

The Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse case, as laid out in the class action complaint, begs a bigger question: What would genuine corporate accountability look like? And, How can consumer advocacy ensure no child ends up swallowing a dangerously marketed mouth rinse?

1. Stricter Enforcement of Existing Regulations
   • The FDA already has regulations requiring prominent notices on fluoride mouth rinse packaging. If the allegations are correct, Hello Products disregarded these rules. Simply enforcing 21 C.F.R. § 355.55 with vigor would represent a strong step forward. Regulators could impose substantial fines or issue mandatory product recalls whenever a label fails to meet the “prominence” test.
   • Consistent, proactive inspections of mouth rinse products could ensure no brand can quietly slip candy-flavored versions onto shelves without the mandated disclaimers.
2. Higher Penalties for Violations
   • When companies treat compliance violations as a minor business expense, the risk to consumers remains high. To shift that calculus, penalties for misbranding—especially involving children’s products—could be increased substantially. If the brand’s potential penalty dwarfs projected sales, it will be more likely to comply.
3. Ban on Candy-Flavored High-Fluoride Products for Children
   • Some public-health advocates argue that marketing candy flavors specifically to the under-six demographic for a fluoride mouth rinse should be outright banned, given the known risks. Eliminating a child-centric flavor profile might reduce the risk that children will swallow the product.
4. Mandatory Child-Resistant Packaging
   • The lawsuit references how easy it is for a child to open the bottle and ingest the sweet-tasting liquid. Regulators could mandate child-resistant caps or very strong disclaimers that the product should be placed well out of reach of kids. This approach is common for potentially harmful household cleaners, prescription medications, and certain over-the-counter drugs. It could be extended to children’s mouth rinses containing fluoride.
5. Transparency in Labeling
   • Rather than bury warnings in tiny type, mandate a front-label statement such as “WARNING: Not for Children Under 6. Potential Harm if Swallowed.” This approach would mirror how tobacco products must display large, explicit health warnings. If a brand wants to tout “unicorn flavor,” it should be legally obliged to place an equally bold toxicity warning upfront.
6. Consumer Education Campaigns
   • Parents and caregivers often remain unaware of the specific dangers of fluoride ingestion in the early years. A well-funded, widely shared public-health campaign can clarify why even the best-intentioned adult might inadvertently harm their child by using these products too soon.
   • Pediatricians and dentists could play a significant role by asking parents specifically about mouth rinse usage for children, intervening before harm occurs.
7. Collective Consumer Activism
   • Class actions provide one legal pathway, but broader consumer movements can also shine a spotlight on corporate practices. Parents can band together online, share experiences, and demand better labeling or safer formulations.
   • Social media campaigns that call out brands for questionable marketing can force quicker corporate responses than waiting for drawn-out legal battles.
8. Reevaluating Corporate Social Responsibility
   • Ultimately, the Hello lawsuit reveals a shortfall in how companies implement “CSR.” It’s easy to claim a product is “naturally friendly.” Actually living up to that principle means ensuring the product is safe in the scenarios it’s most likely to be used—including kids who swallow. Reform-minded consumers and activists can insist that genuine CSR must incorporate robust checks for such issues.
   • If corporations truly want to champion “corporate social responsibility,” they should demonstrate it by exceeding the minimum labeling requirements, not undermining them.

Neoliberal capitalism, as it stands, does not systematically penalize questionable corporate choices until or unless a crisis or scandal emerges. Parents rely on the assumption that children’s products have been safety-checked, but this case underscores the real possibility that brand packaging can circumvent protective rules for profit.