Latest Update: As of July 11, 2026, nothing has changed in the Snow Teeth Whitening litigation since the Poyer case was terminated in August 2024. Both federal class actions remain closed with no consumer settlement fund, claims portal, or payout process. Several other sites currently publishing “2026 lawsuit” content describe the case as “ongoing” or reference a pending settlement — that is inaccurate. If new litigation is filed, court dockets will show it under a new case number; there is no indication of that as of this check.
Last updated: July 2026
The Snow Teeth Whitening lawsuit is not one case. It is two federal class actions, filed in 2020 and 2022, both alleging a pattern of false advertising, fake awards, and misleading health claims targeting people who spent up to $200 on an at-home whitening kit. Both were ultimately terminated without a consumer settlement.
This is the complete picture most sites get wrong. They cover one case and miss the other. Some even fabricate claims about ongoing settlements that do not exist.
Here you will get the real timeline, the real court outcomes, and the real answers about what Snow’s advertising actually said, what lab testing found, and what customers reported about enamel damage. One number worth knowing up front: the original complaint sought damages of at least $149 per customer across a class of at least 100 people, with total controversy exceeding $5 million.
What Were the Snow Teeth Whitening Lawsuit Allegations?
The Snow Teeth Whitening lawsuits alleged a sweeping pattern of false and misleading advertising across multiple product claims.
The lawsuit alleged Snow falsely claimed its All-In-One teeth whitening kit was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, while in fact cosmetic products including teeth whitening products are not subject to FDA approval.
The complaints did not stop there. The lawsuit alleged the defendants charged consumers nearly $200 for products that were effectively no different from similar items sold for much less, and that claims about popularity, FDA approval, awards, and germ-fighting capabilities were equally false.
The original complaint identified six core categories of allegedly false claims. Each was specific and damaging on its own. Together they painted a picture of a company whose marketing, plaintiffs argued, bore little relationship to scientific reality.
| Allegation Category | Specific Claim Made | What Plaintiffs Said |
|---|---|---|
| Product effectiveness | Whitens five times faster than strips | Not supported by clinical evidence |
| LED technology | Mouthpiece accelerates whitening | Independent lab found no added benefit |
| FDA status | Kit is FDA approved | Cosmetic products are not FDA-approvable |
| Proprietary formula | Serum is exclusive to Snow | Formula is standard hydrogen and carbamide peroxide |
| Awards and accolades | Featured in major publications | Allegedly fabricated or misattributed |
| COVID-19 protection | Blue light protects against germs | No scientific basis; unsubstantiated health claim |
Understanding Kraus v. Snow Teeth Whitening LLC
Kraus v. Snow Teeth Whitening LLC was the first federal class action against the company, filed in December 2020 in the Eastern District of New York.
The complaint alleged that Snow Teeth Whitening falsely claimed its products provide various teeth whitening benefits, protection from the COVID-19 virus, have been approved by the FDA, are patented, and have received awards and accolades from various publications.
The lead plaintiff was Burton Kraus. His case ran into serious credibility problems at the deposition stage. The plaintiff admitted he made his purchase only after his lawyers had already drafted the complaint and sent a demand letter to Snow seeking a multimillion-dollar settlement.
That admission was fatal to the case. On September 30, U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack granted Snow’s motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff had not purchased a Snow Teeth whitening system before filing the claim, was good friends with one of his lawyers, and had not seen the advertisements he claimed to be misleading.
| Case Detail | Info |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Kraus v. Snow Teeth Whitening LLC et al. |
| Case Number | 2:20-cv-06085 |
| Court | Eastern District of New York |
| Filed | December 2020 |
| Dismissed | September 30, 2022 |
| Reason | Lack of plaintiff standing |
Key Takeaway: The Kraus case was dismissed on a standing issue, meaning the court never ruled on whether Snow’s advertising was actually false.
Poyer v. Snow Teeth Whitening LLC: The Second Lawsuit
Poyer v. Snow Teeth Whitening LLC was a second, separate class action filed in March 2022, also in the Eastern District of New York.
Plaintiffs Melissa Poyer, Joanne Moynihan, Nicole Petker, and Kimberly Marino brought a class action against Snow Teeth Whitening LLC, Snow Cosmetics LLC, Foresold LLC, and Joshua Elizetxe, claiming defendants used false advertising and marketing for at-home teeth whitening products, causing resulting damages.
The Poyer plaintiffs were more credible than Kraus. They were actual product purchasers. Plaintiff Melissa Poyer purchased a whitening device on May 20, 2021 from trysnow.com for $149.
Court records show the case was terminated on August 21, 2024, with August 21, 2024 recorded as the date of last filing. The terms of the termination are not publicly confirmed in detail, but no public settlement fund or claims process was ever announced.
| Case Detail | Info |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Poyer et al. v. Snow Teeth Whitening LLC et al. |
| Case Number | 2:22-cv-01506 |
| Court | Eastern District of New York |
| Filed | March 18, 2022 |
| Terminated | August 21, 2024 |
| Lead Plaintiff | Melissa Poyer, Nassau County, NY |
Rob Gronkowski and Floyd Mayweather Named in Snow Lawsuit
Rob Gronkowski and Floyd Mayweather were both named as defendants in the original Kraus class action, making the Snow lawsuit one of the highest-profile celebrity endorsement cases in consumer product history.
The initial suit named Snow’s celebrity endorsers, NFL star Rob Gronkowski and Boxing Champion Floyd Mayweather, in a bid to generate as much press coverage as possible. Both have since been dismissed from the suit.
The complaint alleged the two celebrities promoted products whose advertised benefits were false. The defendants were accused of claiming the wired teeth whitening light was patented or patent-pending and approved by the FDA, when the FDA never approved any of the defendants’ products.
The celebrity angle was legal strategy as much as substance. Naming Gronkowski and Mayweather guaranteed headlines. But courts have consistently held that celebrities who repeat advertiser claims are not automatically liable for false advertising.
- Rob Gronkowski: dismissed from Kraus suit
- Floyd Mayweather: dismissed from Kraus suit
- Neither celebrity faced final liability findings
Key Takeaway: Both celebrities were dismissed from the lawsuit, and the case against Snow’s founder and company entities ended without a public consumer payout.
Snow Teeth Whitening’s False FDA Approval Claim
The FDA approval claim was one of the most concrete and verifiable allegations in the entire lawsuit.
TINA.org found Snow was using a prominent FDA logo on its packaging. In response to an inquiry, a Snow spokeswoman said the company knew a large consulting firm that had connections across large retailers and regulation agencies, and that the firm had authorized the use of the FDA logo.
The FDA’s own policy is unambiguous. The FDA Logo Policy is clear: the FDA logo is for the official use of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and not for use on private sector materials, specifically to prevent sending the wrong message that the FDA favors or endorses a private sector organization’s products.
Snow’s response to the investigation was to quietly remove the logo. Following TINA.org’s complaint to the FDA, Snow Teeth Whitening’s product packaging no longer bore the FDA logo.
The timing matters. Snow removed the logo after being caught. Customers who purchased the product before that removal saw “FDA approved” on the box and reasonably believed it.
The Snow Teeth Whitening COVID-19 Protection Claim
The COVID-19 protection claim was the most explosive allegation in the Kraus complaint, and it told a lot about how Snow was willing to market its products during the pandemic.
The plaintiff alleged that Snow Teeth engaged in false advertising by claiming its whitening product could prevent infection, including COVID-19, due to its blue and red light technologies.
The specific claims were detailed. Plaintiff argued the company falsely advertised that, during the pandemic, the blue light version would protect against germs and bacteria when combined with hydrogen peroxide, and that a red light option would prevent infection.
No peer-reviewed evidence was ever produced to support those claims. No clinical trial. No independent verification. Snow sold an LED mouthpiece, not a medical device, to people living through a terrifying pandemic.
Even though the court did not rule on the merits of the advertising itself, the case serves as a warning to oral care brands about the dangers of making unsupported health claims in their marketing.
What Did Independent Lab Testing Show About the Snow LED Mouthpiece?
Independent laboratory testing was a key piece of the factual record in the Kraus complaint.
While defendants unequivocally claimed that their teeth whitening light delivered amazing results, independent lab testing proved that the light did nothing to enhance the product’s purported ability to whiten teeth.
Think of it like a car with a fake engine sound system. The noise makes it feel faster. The light made the kit feel more clinical and professional. But according to the lab results cited in the complaint, the LED component produced no measurable acceleration in whitening.
The complaint alleged that Snow’s patent-pending LED mouthpiece was claimed to accelerate the whitening process, but independent laboratory testing on Snow products revealed the mouthpiece produced no material added benefit in terms of speed or effectiveness.
| Claim | What Snow Said | What Lab Testing Found |
|---|---|---|
| LED mouthpiece effect | Accelerates whitening | No material added benefit |
| Whitening speed | Five times faster than strips | No clinical trial support |
| Photo-catalyst serum | Breaks down peroxide faster | Ingredient not in stated formula |
Key Takeaway: The lab testing at the heart of the complaint undermined Snow’s core product performance claims, but the court never issued a ruling on whether those claims were legally false.
Snow Teeth Whitening’s Fabricated Awards and Accolades
The awards and accolades allegations may be the most brazen claims in the entire complaint, and they are the ones most consumers would never think to question.
In addition to making false statements regarding FDA approval, the defendants were also accused of having fabricated awards and accolades from well-known publications, with the lawsuit stating that the defendants were so brazen they falsely claimed awards that actually went to a different company’s product.
Snow’s marketing told consumers the product had won recognition from major publications like Good Housekeeping. The complaint alleged that defendants misrepresented awards given to another company’s product, and that no major publication had named the Snow kit a favorite product or given it similar recognition.
Trust seals and editorial awards carry enormous weight in consumer purchasing decisions. Claiming a “Good Housekeeping Seal” or similar recognition that you do not have is not a gray area in consumer protection law.
The TINA.org Snow Teeth Whitening Investigation
Before the lawsuits were filed, a consumer watchdog was already tracking Snow’s marketing problems.
TINA.org investigated Snow Teeth Whitening, an Arizona-based dental cosmetics company, and found that it was improperly using an FDA logo in its marketing materials, including on its product packaging, website, and social media platforms, in violation of the FDA’s Logo Policy, and also falsely claiming that its teeth whitening products were FDA-approved.
The investigation also uncovered problems with influencer marketing. TINA.org investigated Snow Teeth Whitening as part of its larger investigation into deceptive social media influencer marketing, finding that social media influencer Dorothy Wang failed to include adequate disclosures of her material connection to the brand in her posts.
The TINA.org findings predated the Kraus lawsuit by over a year. That matters. It means Snow had been publicly flagged for deceptive practices before any plaintiff ever filed a formal complaint. The FDA logo issue was known. It was investigated. And it took a media inquiry to get Snow to remove it.
Why Was the Snow Teeth Whitening Lawsuit Dismissed?
The Snow Teeth Whitening lawsuit was dismissed because the lead plaintiff lacked legal standing, not because Snow’s advertising was found truthful.
The court ruled that the plaintiff did not have standing to bring the claims because he could not show he had ever actually relied on any of the supposedly false ads. The court also called the decision to bring the lawsuit troubling and strongly implied that the plaintiff’s attorneys never had any good-faith basis for it.
The standing problem was serious. The plaintiff admitted he made his purchase only after his lawyers had already drafted the complaint and sent a demand letter to Snow seeking a multimillion-dollar settlement, and that he could not recall actually seeing, much less relying on, any of the allegedly misleading advertising identified in his own pleading.
The court found no causal link between the ads and the purchase. No link means no standing. No standing means no case. The merits of whether Snow’s advertising was actually false were never tested at trial.
What Does Legal Standing Mean and Why Does It Matter?
Legal standing is the threshold requirement that a plaintiff must meet before a court will hear their case.
To have standing in a false advertising case, a plaintiff must show three things: they suffered an injury, the injury was caused by the defendant’s conduct, and the court can provide a remedy for it. In consumer class actions, the causation element usually requires showing you actually saw and relied on the false advertising before making your purchase.
Kraus failed the causation test. He could not prove the false ads drove his decision to buy, because he bought the product only after his lawyers had already drafted the lawsuit. The purchase was arranged to manufacture standing, and the court saw through it.
This is the critical distinction most readers miss. A dismissal for lack of standing is not a verdict that the company did nothing wrong. The court ruled the plaintiff could not prove he relied on Snow’s advertising before purchasing the product, which meant he lacked legal standing to pursue the claim.
Snow’s advertising was never tested on the merits.
Key Takeaway: Dismissal for lack of standing means the court never evaluated whether Snow’s advertising claims were actually true or false.
Snow Teeth Whitening Enamel Damage: Consumer Complaints
Beyond the courtroom, real customers reported real problems with the products.
Consumer comments filed on lawsuit tracking pages included reports that enamel was destroyed on front teeth, that the product proved ineffective in whitening, and that multiple purchasers felt the advertising was without fact or supporting evidence.
These were not isolated voices. Dozens of consumers posted similar reports on public legal news sites after the Kraus complaint was covered in the media. The pattern was consistent: bought based on advertising, saw no results, and in some cases experienced sensitivity or what they believed was enamel damage.
It’s worth being clear about what enamel damage from whitening actually means. High-concentration peroxide products can cause temporary sensitivity and, with excessive use, some enamel degradation. Snow’s own product line includes a “Desensitizing Serum” sold as an add-on. The complaint pointed out that Snow sold a product called the Add On For Sensitive Teeth or Desensitizing Serum to reduce sensitivity that may result from use of their products, while also claiming the products do not cause tooth sensitivity. That contradiction was itself an allegation in the complaint.
Is There a Snow Teeth Whitening Settlement in 2026?
There is no active Snow Teeth Whitening settlement in 2026, and no claims process is currently open to consumers.
As of early 2026, there are no active nationwide class-action settlements directly tied to the original Snow Teeth Whitening lawsuit. The primary lawsuit filed in 2020 was dismissed in 2022 due to lack of plaintiff standing, and no publicly confirmed nationwide settlement has been announced.
The Poyer case was terminated in August 2024, also without a public settlement fund. No claims portal. No notice mailing. No per-person payout.
Any website telling you to file a claim or that a settlement is pending in 2026 is not reporting accurate information. There is no fund to claim from.
| Case | Outcome | Settlement for Consumers |
|---|---|---|
| Kraus (2020) | Dismissed 2022 | None |
| Poyer (2022) | Terminated 2024 | None announced |
| Current active case | None confirmed | None |
What Snow Customers Can Do Right Now
Consumers who believe they were misled by Snow’s advertising still have some avenues worth knowing about, even without an active class action.
File an FTC complaint. The Federal Trade Commission accepts consumer complaints about false advertising at no cost. Complaints become part of the agency’s enforcement database. They do not produce individual refunds but do contribute to regulatory action.
Pursue a chargeback or direct refund. If you purchased with a credit card, you may be within a chargeback window depending on when you bought. Contact your card issuer. If within the return window Snow advertises, contact them directly.
Document your experience. If you experienced enamel damage, tooth sensitivity, or no visible results, photograph your teeth and get a dental assessment. If new litigation is filed in the future, documented harm is far stronger than a vague complaint.
- Save your purchase receipt and order confirmation email
- Photograph any product packaging showing FDA language
- Get a dental evaluation if you experienced sensitivity or damage
- File an FTC complaint at ftc.gov (no attorney needed)
- Monitor court dockets for any new Snow Teeth Whitening filings
The At-Home Teeth Whitening Lawsuit Trend: What It Means for Buyers
The Snow cases did not happen in isolation. They are part of a broader legal trend targeting at-home whitening products that overpromise and underdeliver.
The recent wave of lawsuits against Aspen Dental, Snow Teeth Whitening, children’s toothpaste brands like Crest and Colgate, and Hello Toothpaste underscores the critical importance of truth in advertising within the oral care industry.
Courts and regulators are paying more attention to dental cosmetic marketing than ever before. Claims like “five times faster” or “professional results at home” are increasingly being scrutinized for independent clinical backing. The Snow cases established a detailed factual record of what alleged false advertising in this category looks like, even if the cases ended without merits rulings.
For consumers, the lesson is practical. When a product claims FDA approval, check whether cosmetic products can actually receive that approval (they cannot). When a product promises whitening speeds faster than competing products, ask where the clinical trial is. When a celebrity endorses a health or cosmetic claim, that endorsement carries no scientific weight.
Frequently Asked Questions
Was the Snow Teeth Whitening lawsuit won or dismissed?
The primary Snow Teeth Whitening lawsuit was dismissed in 2022, and the second case was terminated in 2024.
Neither dismissal was a ruling that Snow’s advertising was truthful. The first was dismissed because the plaintiff lacked standing.
No public settlement was announced in either case.
Did Rob Gronkowski and Floyd Mayweather face any legal consequences?
Both celebrities were dismissed from the Snow Teeth Whitening lawsuit without any liability findings against them.
They were named in the original Kraus complaint as celebrity endorsers who promoted allegedly false product claims.
No court found either Gronkowski or Mayweather personally liable for the advertising at issue.
Can I still get a refund from Snow Teeth Whitening in 2026?
There is no active class action settlement offering refunds to Snow customers as of 2026.
Your best immediate option is to pursue a chargeback through your credit card issuer or contact Snow directly through their official return process.
You can also file a complaint with the FTC to add your experience to the agency’s enforcement record.
Did Snow Teeth Whitening really claim its products could stop COVID-19?
Yes. The Kraus complaint alleged the company falsely advertised that the blue light version would protect against germs and bacteria when combined with hydrogen peroxide, and that a red light option would prevent infection.
Those claims were central to the class action filed in December 2020.
No scientific evidence supported either claim, and no court has ever ruled them truthful.
What does “lack of standing” mean and why does it matter?
Lack of standing means the court found the plaintiff did not have the legal right to bring the specific claims in that lawsuit.
In the Snow case, the plaintiff admitted he bought the product only after his lawyers had already drafted the complaint, meaning he could not prove the ads caused his purchase.
It does not mean Snow’s advertising was accurate. It means this particular plaintiff was not the right person to challenge it.
Two lawsuits. Two dismissals. No settlement fund. That is the honest summary of the Snow Teeth Whitening legal story as of 2026.
If you bought Snow products and felt misled, document what you experienced and file an FTC complaint. It costs nothing and creates a paper trail regulators actually use.
Watch for any new filings. The underlying advertising issues were never tested at trial. Future litigation remains possible.
