The LOLA tampons lawsuit is a federal class action against ALYK Inc., the company behind the popular LOLA organic tampon brand. Plaintiffs allege the tampons lack a protective outer coating, causing them to unravel and shed cotton fibers inside users’ bodies during removal. No settlement has been reached as of early 2026 — the case remains active in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Quick Answer: The Lola tampons class action (Manson v. ALYK Inc., Case No. 7:21-cv-05688) was filed in July 2021 and alleges the tampons unravel internally due to a design defect, causing vaginal irritation, infections, and injury. The lawsuit is still pending — there is no claim deadline or settlement payout at this time. If a settlement is reached, affected users who purchased LOLA tampons (particularly between 2018 and 2022) may qualify for compensation. This guide covers everything you need to know right now. Target Class Action Lawsuit 2026
What Is the LOLA Tampons Lawsuit About?
Background of the Lawsuit
LOLA launched as a direct-to-consumer feminine care brand promising 100% organic cotton tampons with no synthetic materials, dyes, or fragrances. The brand quickly built a loyal following among health-conscious consumers who believed “organic” meant safer. Many women subscribed to monthly delivery boxes and used the products for years.
That trust started to crack when users began posting reviews describing tampons that came apart during removal — leaving cotton fragments stuck inside their bodies. Some women required medical attention to have the pieces removed. Others reported infections, burning sensations, and vaginal irritation. The complaints mounted publicly on LOLA’s own website, across social media, and on consumer forums.
In July 2021, plaintiff Kimberley Manson filed a class action complaint in federal court. Her attorneys at Bursor & Fisher PA argued that LOLA’s design was fundamentally flawed — and that the company knew about the problem and did nothing.
Timeline of Key Events
| Date | Event | Details |
|---|---|---|
| 2018–2022 | LOLA tampons widely sold | Products marketed as 100% organic, gynecologist-approved |
| 2020–2021 | Consumer complaints emerge | Users post reviews on LOLA’s site describing unraveling; some seek medical care |
| July 1, 2021 | Class action complaint filed | Manson v. ALYK Inc., Case No. 7:21-cv-05688, SDNY |
| Late 2021 | ALYK granted additional response time | Court grants defendant extension to respond |
| 2022–2023 | Discovery/investigation phase | Attorneys gather evidence; case proceeds through federal court |
| 2024 | UC Berkeley study published | Independent research finds trace heavy metals in multiple tampon brands |
| 2024–2025 | FDA increases scrutiny | Agency announces expanded review of tampon safety monitoring |
| 2025–2026 | Case still active | No settlement announced; litigation continues |
| TBD | Settlement or trial verdict | Unknown — follow court updates |
Who Filed the Lawsuit?
Lead plaintiff Kimberley Manson filed the complaint in the Southern District of New York. She is represented by attorneys Yitzchak Kopel and Alec M. Leslie of the law firm Bursor & Fisher PA, a firm known for handling consumer class actions.
The defendant is ALYK Inc., the company that manufactures and markets LOLA-branded menstrual products. The case was assigned to the federal docket in the Southern District of New York, with Judge Philip M. Halpern presiding.
What Are the Allegations?
The lawsuit centers on one core design defect claim, with several supporting legal theories:
- Unraveling during removal: Plaintiffs say LOLA tampons shed cotton fibers inside the vaginal canal when removed because they lack a standard protective outer coating used by competing tampon brands.
- Knowledge and failure to act: The complaint alleges ALYK was aware of the problem through public consumer reviews posted directly on its own website — and failed to recall the product or warn users.
- False “gynecologist-approved” marketing: The lawsuit challenges LOLA’s branding claims, arguing that language like “gynecologist-approved” and “clean” misleads consumers about actual product safety.
- Potential for infection: Retained cotton fibers can create a surface for bacterial growth, leading to vaginal infections, inflammation, and for some women, serious injury.
- Breach of warranty and fraud: Manson’s attorneys are pursuing claims under New York General Business Law, breach of warranty, fraud, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation.
The complaint included approximately 30 consumer reviews from LOLA’s own website as supporting evidence — reviews describing tampons that fell apart, strings that pulled through, and cotton pieces that had to be manually removed.
Who Could Qualify for a LOLA Tampons Settlement?
Quick Answer: No settlement exists yet. But based on the lawsuit’s allegations, the class is expected to cover people who purchased LOLA tampons (particularly regular, super, and super-plus varieties) primarily between 2018 and 2022. Proof of purchase and documentation of any health issues experienced will likely strengthen any future claim.
Likely Eligibility Requirements (When a Settlement Is Reached)
| Requirement | Details | Documentation You May Need |
|---|---|---|
| Purchased LOLA tampons | Any LOLA tampon product | Receipts, order confirmations, subscription records |
| Time period | Most complaints focus on 2018–2022 purchases | Purchase date on receipts or account history |
| U.S. resident | Nationwide class and New York subclass identified | Address at time of purchase |
| Experienced harm (for higher tiers) | Vaginal irritation, infection, required medical care | Medical records, doctor visit notes |
| No prior settlement with ALYK | Cannot have already settled individually | Attorney consultation may clarify |
Because the lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide class plus a New York subclass, two separate eligibility tracks may exist if a settlement is reached. New York residents who purchased the product may qualify under both.
Products Likely Covered
| Product Type | Sizes | Primary Purchase Period | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| LOLA Organic Tampons (no applicator) | Regular, Super, Super Plus | 2018–2022 | Core product at issue |
| LOLA Organic Tampons (with applicator) | Regular, Super, Super Plus | 2018–2022 | Also covered in complaint |
| LOLA subscription box orders | All tampon varieties | 2018–2022 | Account records available |
| Other LOLA sanitary products | Pads, liners | 2018–2022 | Complaint alleges all products lack coating |
Who Likely Does NOT Qualify?
If a settlement is reached, you probably won’t be eligible if:
- You never purchased or used LOLA tampon products
- You purchased LOLA products outside the class period (if a specific date range is set)
- You already settled an individual claim with ALYK Inc.
- You opt out of the class action to pursue your own separate lawsuit
- You are a corporate purchaser or reseller (not a personal consumer)
What Documentation to Start Collecting Now
Don’t wait for a settlement announcement to gather your records. The stronger your documentation, the better your position when claims open.
| Document | Why It Matters | Where to Find It |
|---|---|---|
| Purchase receipts | Proves you bought the product | Email inbox, Amazon orders, LOLA account |
| Subscription confirmation emails | Confirms purchase history | Gmail/email search for “LOLA” |
| Product packaging or photos | Establishes product version | If kept, photograph UPC/batch number |
| Medical records | Documents injuries from the product | Request from your doctor or hospital |
| Doctor’s notes or bills | Corroborates health harm | Request from provider |
| Online reviews you posted | Shows you reported the problem | Screenshot any reviews you wrote |
What Could You Get from a Settlement?
No settlement fund has been established. However, based on how similar tampon lawsuits have resolved, here’s what you could expect if ALYK reaches a deal. Cosmic Crisp Apple Lawsuit
How Similar Cases Have Settled
| Lawsuit | Settlement Amount | Core Allegation | Payout Range | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| LOLA (Manson v. ALYK) | Pending | Unraveling / design defect | Unknown | Active |
| U by Kotex (Kimberly-Clark) | $7 million | Tampons unravel internally | Varies by claim | Settled ~2020 |
| Thinx Period Underwear | ~$5 million | PFAS chemicals / false advertising | $7–$35+ per item | Settled 2023 |
| Always/Tampax PFAS | Multiple cases pending | Forever chemicals in products | TBD | Active |
| L. Brand Organic Tampons | Multiple cases | Non-organic ingredients / greenwashing | TBD | Active |
The U by Kotex settlement is the most directly comparable case — it involved the exact same core defect (unraveling tampons) and settled for $7 million. If LOLA’s case reaches a similar resolution, class members who experienced injury may receive higher payouts than those who simply purchased the product without adverse effects.
Potential Payout Tiers (Illustrative — Based on Similar Cases)
| Claim Tier | Likely Range | Who Would Qualify | Payment Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Documented injury (medical care) | $100–$500+ | Proof of doctor visit / hospital | Cash |
| Documented harm (infection/irritation) | $50–$150 | Medical notes, self-reported symptoms | Cash |
| Purchase with product experience | $15–$50 | Receipt + use of product | Cash or credit |
| Base purchaser (no documented harm) | $5–$20 | Proof of purchase only | Cash or credit |
These are estimates based on comparable tampon settlements. Actual amounts depend on the final settlement terms negotiated between ALYK and plaintiffs’ attorneys, subject to court approval.
What’s the Current Status? (2026 Update)
Where the Case Stands Right Now
As of early 2026, Manson v. ALYK Inc. remains an active federal lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. Courts granted ALYK additional time to respond to the original complaint, and the case has moved through initial procedural phases. Many docket details sit behind paid legal research systems, but public reporting consistently describes the case as ongoing and unresolved.
LOLA/ALYK has not issued a product recall. The company has denied wrongdoing and continues to sell products. In public statements, the company said independent lab tests did not find heavy metals in its products — though the core lawsuit allegation isn’t about heavy metals, but about the physical unraveling defect.
Recent Developments in the Broader Tampon Safety Space
The LOLA case has become part of a much larger national conversation about tampon safety, and several 2024–2025 developments are highly relevant:
UC Berkeley Heavy Metals Study (2024): Researchers found trace amounts of lead, cadmium, arsenic, and other metals in tampons from multiple brands — both organic and conventional. While this wasn’t the core claim in the LOLA lawsuit, it increased public and regulatory attention on menstrual product safety broadly.
FDA Expanded Review: After the Berkeley findings and pressure from the Democratic Women’s Caucus in Congress, the FDA announced it would review how tampon safety is monitored. This regulatory momentum could influence settlement dynamics or push ALYK toward resolution.
State-Level Ingredient Disclosure Laws: California’s Menstrual Products Right to Know Act (effective 2023) and New York’s similar law require brands to disclose intentionally added ingredients. These laws create new legal exposure for companies with transparency gaps in their labeling.
TikTok and Social Media Attention: Viral posts claiming LOLA tampons contain titanium dioxide (not confirmed in court filings) significantly expanded public awareness of the lawsuit, driving thousands of consumers to research their options.
What Happens Next
| Upcoming Milestone | Timeframe | What to Watch |
|---|---|---|
| Class certification motion | 2025–2026 | Court decides if case proceeds as full class action |
| Discovery completion | Ongoing | Both sides exchange evidence |
| Potential mediation / settlement talks | Unknown | Parties may negotiate out of court |
| Trial (if no settlement) | 2026–2027 or later | Federal court docket determines timeline |
| Settlement announcement (if reached) | Unknown | Monitor Top Class Actions, court PACER |
How to Protect Your Rights Right Now
Even though no settlement is open for filing, there are concrete steps you should take today.
Step 1: Document Everything
Go through your email and find every LOLA-related purchase confirmation. Screenshot your LOLA account order history if you subscribed. If you experienced any health issues — even if you didn’t connect them to the tampons at the time — talk to your doctor and request records.
Step 2: Stop Using the Product If You Have Concerns
The decision is yours, but if you’re concerned about the allegations, you can switch products while the case is resolved. Many consumers have moved to menstrual cups, period underwear, or other tampon brands. Consult your gynecologist with any questions about symptoms you’ve experienced.
Step 3: Monitor the Case
The best free resource for tracking this lawsuit is Top Class Actions and the court’s public docket (PACER, Case No. 7:21-cv-05688, SDNY). If a settlement is announced, class members typically receive a notice by mail or email — but only if the court can identify them. People who subscribed directly through LOLA’s website may be easier to identify.
Step 4: Consider a Free Legal Consultation
If you experienced significant health harm — infections, medical visits, or ongoing symptoms — it may be worth consulting an attorney who handles consumer product liability cases. Many offer free consultations and work on contingency (no fee unless you win).
Step 5: Respond to Any Class Notice You Receive
When a settlement is reached, the court will approve a class notice that gets sent out to potential members. Do not ignore it. You typically have to respond affirmatively to receive any payment, or opt out if you want to preserve your right to sue separately.
Critical Actions Checklist
| Action | Priority | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Collect purchase records (emails, receipts) | High | Required to file any future claim |
| Gather medical records if applicable | High | Supports higher-tier injury claims |
| Sign up for lawsuit updates | Medium | Be notified when settlement opens |
| Consult attorney if seriously harmed | Medium | Complex claims need professional review |
| Photograph any remaining product packaging | Low | Helps establish product version/batch |
Do You Need a Lawyer?
Quick Answer: No — when a settlement is eventually reached, the claim process in class actions is designed for individuals to file directly without an attorney. However, if you suffered significant injury (medical visits, hospitalization, serious infection), a free consultation with a plaintiff’s attorney is worth pursuing.
Filing Without a Lawyer
For most class action settlements, the claim form is straightforward: you confirm your purchase, provide documentation, and submit. The settlement administrator handles processing. This is exactly how the U by Kotex tampon settlement worked — ordinary purchasers filed directly online. Texas Roadhouse Lawsuit
When an Attorney Makes Sense
Consider reaching out to a consumer attorney if:
- You required medical attention to remove tampon fragments
- You suffered a serious infection or vaginal injury linked to LOLA products
- Your damages significantly exceed what a standard class settlement might pay
- You’re considering opting out to file an individual lawsuit for greater compensation
- You received a denial on a claim and want to appeal
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the LOLA tampons lawsuit?
Quick Answer: It’s a federal class action against ALYK Inc. (LOLA’s parent company) alleging the tampons unravel inside the body due to a design defect.
Filed in July 2021 in New York federal court, the lawsuit claims LOLA organic tampons lack a protective outer coating that other brands use to keep fibers intact during insertion and removal. The result, plaintiffs say, is that cotton fragments are left inside users’ bodies, causing irritation, infections, and in some cases requiring medical attention. The case is still active — no settlement has been reached.
Is there a settlement I can join right now?
Quick Answer: No. As of early 2026, no settlement has been announced in this case.
The lawsuit is still in active litigation. When a settlement is reached, it will be announced publicly and class members will receive notice. Check Top Class Actions or sign up for alerts to be notified immediately.
Who qualifies for the LOLA tampons lawsuit?
Quick Answer: People who purchased LOLA tampons — primarily between 2018 and 2022 — are expected to be in the class, especially those who experienced harm.
The complaint covers a nationwide class of LOLA tampon users. A separate New York subclass is also identified. Specific eligibility criteria will be set by the court when a settlement is approved. Start collecting your purchase records now.
What are the main allegations against LOLA?
Quick Answer: That the tampons unravel internally due to a missing protective coating, and that the company knew and failed to act.
The complaint also alleges that LOLA’s “gynecologist-approved” and “clean” marketing misled consumers about actual product safety. Additional legal claims include breach of warranty, fraud, and unjust enrichment under New York law.
Who is the lead plaintiff?
Quick Answer: Kimberley Manson, a LOLA tampon user who says the product unraveled during removal, leaving fragments inside her body.
Manson is represented by Bursor & Fisher PA, a consumer class action firm. She reported burning sensations, discomfort, and retained cotton pieces after using LOLA tampons.
What exactly is the alleged design defect?
Quick Answer: LOLA tampons allegedly lack a standard protective outer coating, allowing fibers to loosen and shed during removal.
Most major tampon brands apply a thin outer layer to the tampon body to hold fibers in place during both insertion and removal. Plaintiffs argue LOLA skipped this step, resulting in a product that sheds cotton fragments inside the body — a risk the brand’s “organic” and “clean” marketing never disclosed.
Did LOLA know about the problem?
Quick Answer: The lawsuit alleges yes — that LOLA received consumer complaints through public reviews on its own website and failed to act.
The original complaint cited approximately 30 consumer reviews from LOLA’s website describing the unraveling problem. Plaintiffs argue this public paper trail shows the company had notice of the defect and chose not to recall the product or warn users.
Has LOLA recalled its tampons?
Quick Answer: No. As of 2026, there has been no product recall.
LOLA continues to sell products and has denied wrongdoing. The company has stated its products meet safety standards and that independent testing found no heavy metals — though the core lawsuit claim is about physical unraveling, not chemical contamination.
What is LOLA’s response to the lawsuit?
Quick Answer: The company denies the allegations and says its products are safe.
ALYK Inc.’s legal team argues that individual adverse reactions don’t prove a systematic product defect. The company stands by its organic cotton claims and says it maintains high safety standards. Courts will ultimately evaluate the evidence from both sides.
Are LOLA tampons still being sold?
Quick Answer: Yes — the company continues to sell products online.
No court order or recall has required LOLA to stop selling its tampons. If you have concerns about using the product, consult your gynecologist.
What similar lawsuits have been filed against tampon brands?
Quick Answer: Several — the most comparable is U by Kotex, which settled for $7 million over the exact same unraveling allegation.
Other active cases include lawsuits against L. Brand (organic tampons alleged to contain non-organic ingredients), and class actions involving PFAS (“forever chemicals”) against Tampax, Always, and other major brands. The tampon safety litigation landscape has expanded significantly since 2021.
What health risks are alleged in the lawsuit?
Quick Answer: Vaginal irritation, infections, physical injury from retained cotton, and in some cases the need for medical intervention.
The complaint does not focus on toxic shock syndrome (TSS), which is typically associated with prolonged tampon use. Instead, the core harm alleged is localized: cotton fragments left inside the body that create a surface for bacterial growth and can cause inflammation and infection.
Does the lawsuit involve heavy metals or PFAS?
Quick Answer: Not directly — the core claim is about the physical unraveling defect. But the broader tampon safety conversation does include these concerns.
A 2024 study from UC Berkeley found trace heavy metals (lead, cadmium, arsenic) in tampons from multiple brands. LOLA publicly stated its products tested negative for heavy metals. The Manson lawsuit, however, is specifically about the lack of a protective coating — not chemical contamination.
What did the UC Berkeley study find about tampons?
Quick Answer: Researchers found trace amounts of toxic metals including lead, arsenic, and cadmium across multiple tampon brands, both organic and conventional.
The study’s findings surprised many consumers who assumed “organic” meant free from all contaminants. The research suggests contamination may come from cotton growing conditions or manufacturing processes — and applies broadly across the industry, not just LOLA. No standard federal requirement exists for routine testing of chemical contaminants in tampons.
Will I be automatically included in the class?
Quick Answer: In most class actions, you’re automatically included unless you opt out.
That means if ALYK reaches a settlement, class members who purchased LOLA tampons during the covered period may automatically be entitled to file a claim — but you’ll need to actively submit one to receive payment. Watch for the official class notice.
Can I opt out and sue LOLA on my own?
Quick Answer: Yes — class members always have the right to opt out and pursue individual litigation.
Opting out makes the most sense if your personal damages (medical costs, lost wages, pain and suffering) significantly exceed what a class settlement payout would provide. Talk to a personal injury or product liability attorney before making this decision.
What should I do if I experienced health problems after using LOLA tampons?
Quick Answer: Document everything, see a doctor if you haven’t, and consider a free legal consultation.
Even if you’re not sure whether your symptoms were related to LOLA tampons, make a note of what you experienced and when. Keep any remaining product packaging. Request medical records from any doctor visits you had during that period. Many consumer attorneys offer free case evaluations and can help you assess your options.
How will I know when a settlement is announced?
Quick Answer: Monitor Top Class Actions, court records (PACER), or sign up for legal news alerts.
If you purchased LOLA tampons through their website with a registered account, you may also be notified directly via email if the court approves a class notice sent to known purchasers. Don’t rely on this alone — actively track the case through public legal news sources.
What happened with the U by Kotex tampon lawsuit?
Quick Answer: It settled for $7 million after similar allegations that tampons could unravel internally.
The Kotex settlement is the closest precedent to the LOLA case. It covered consumers who purchased the product within a set class period and provided varying payouts based on whether users experienced harm. Class members who documented medical visits received higher compensation than those who simply purchased the product.
LOLA Tampons Lawsuit vs. Similar Cases
| Case | Core Allegation | Settlement | Payout Range | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manson v. ALYK (LOLA) | Tampons unravel; no protective coating | Pending | TBD | Active |
| U by Kotex (Kimberly-Clark) | Tampons unravel internally | $7 million | Varies | Settled |
| Thinx Period Underwear | PFAS / false advertising | ~$5 million | $7–$35+ | Settled 2023 |
| L. Brand Organic Tampons | Non-organic ingredients; greenwashing | Pending | TBD | Active |
| Tampax/Always PFAS | Forever chemicals in pads/tampons | Pending | TBD | Multiple active |
What makes the LOLA case unique is that it relies heavily on the company’s own published consumer reviews as evidence — something the legal team used to argue ALYK had explicit knowledge of the defect. The “gynecologist-approved” claim on packaging also provides a particularly strong false advertising hook, since consumers reasonably interpret that endorsement as a safety guarantee.
Tampon Safety: The Bigger Picture
The LOLA lawsuit exists within a rapidly expanding area of consumer product litigation. For decades, tampons were regulated as Class II medical devices by the FDA, but they were never subject to mandatory routine testing for chemical contaminants. Manufacturers didn’t have to disclose ingredients on packaging — a gap that consumer advocates have fought to close for years.
Several states have recently moved to change that. California’s Menstrual Products Right to Know Act (2023) now requires ingredient disclosure on menstrual products sold in the state. New York passed a similar law. Federally, the Menstrual Products Right to Know Act of 2022 was introduced in Congress, reflecting growing legislative momentum.
The FDA announced increased scrutiny of tampon safety monitoring after the Berkeley heavy metals study drew widespread media coverage in 2024. These regulatory changes create a backdrop in which ALYK and other manufacturers face growing legal, regulatory, and reputational pressure to be more transparent.
If you’re concerned about your current menstrual product use, alternatives like menstrual cups, menstrual discs, and period underwear avoid the specific unraveling risk at issue in the LOLA case. Whatever you choose, talking to a gynecologist about your options is always a good step.
Key Lawsuit Facts at a Glance
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Manson v. ALYK Inc. |
| Case Number | 7:21-cv-05688 |
| Court | U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York |
| Date Filed | July 1, 2021 |
| Defendant | ALYK Inc. (maker of LOLA branded products) |
| Lead Plaintiff | Kimberley Manson |
| Plaintiff’s Attorneys | Yitzchak Kopel & Alec M. Leslie, Bursor & Fisher PA |
| Core Allegation | Tampons lack protective coating; unravel internally |
| Class | Nationwide + New York Subclass |
| Settlement Status | No settlement — case is active |
| Claim Deadline | None yet — no claims open |
| Products at Issue | LOLA organic tampons (regular, super, super plus) |
| Primary Purchase Period | 2018–2022 |
