Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2025

Loss Contingency [Abstract]

Contingencies

Contingencies

As a global company serving consumers in more than 200 countries and territories, the Company is routinely subject to a wide variety of legal proceedings. These include disputes relating to intellectual property, contracts, product liability, marketing, advertising, foreign exchange controls, antitrust and trade regulation, as well as labor and employment, pension, data privacy and security, environmental and tax matters and consumer class actions. In addition, management proactively reviews and monitors the Company’s exposure to, and the impact of, environmental matters. The Company is party to various environmental matters and, as such, may be responsible for all or a portion of the cleanup, restoration and post-closure monitoring of several sites.

The Company establishes accruals for loss contingencies when it has determined that a loss is probable and that the amount of loss, or range of loss, can be reasonably estimated. Any such accruals are adjusted thereafter as appropriate to reflect changes in circumstances.

The Company also determines estimates of reasonably possible losses or ranges of reasonably possible losses in excess of related accrued liabilities, if any, when it has determined that a loss is reasonably possible and it is able to determine such estimates. For those matters disclosed below for which the amount of any potential losses can be reasonably estimated, the

Company currently estimates that the aggregate range of reasonably possible losses in excess of any accrued liabilities is $0 to approximately $200 (based on current exchange rates). The estimates included in this amount are based on the Company’s analysis of currently available information and, as new information is obtained, these estimates may change. Due to the inherent subjectivity of the assessments and the unpredictability of outcomes of legal proceedings, any amounts accrued or included in this aggregate range may not represent the ultimate loss to the Company. Thus, the Company’s exposure and ultimate losses may be higher or lower, and possibly significantly so, than the amounts accrued or the range disclosed above.

Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that the ultimate resolution of loss contingencies arising from the matters discussed herein will have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position or its ongoing results of operations or cash flows. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties noted above, an adverse outcome in one or more matters could be material to the Company’s results of operations or cash flows for any particular quarter or year.

Brazilian Matters

There are certain tax and civil proceedings outstanding, as described below, related to the Company’s 1995 acquisition of the Kolynos oral care business from Wyeth (the “Seller”).

The Brazilian internal revenue authority has disallowed interest deductions and foreign exchange losses taken by the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary for certain years in connection with the financing of the Kolynos acquisition. The tax assessments with interest, penalties and any court-mandated fees, at the current exchange rate, are approximately $108. This amount includes additional assessments received from the Brazilian internal revenue authority in April 2016 relating to net operating loss carryforwards used by the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary to offset taxable income that had also been deducted from the authority’s original assessments. The Company has been disputing the disallowances by appealing the assessments since October 2001.

In each of September 2015, February 2017, September 2018, April 2019 and August 2020, the Company lost an administrative appeal and subsequently challenged these assessments in the Brazilian federal courts. Currently, there are three lawsuits pending in the Lower Federal Court and the Company has appealed two cases to the Federal Court of Appeals. Although there can be no assurances, management believes, based on the opinion of its Brazilian legal counsel, that it has strong legal grounds to contest the disallowances and that the Company should ultimately prevail. The Company is challenging these disallowances vigorously. In November 2023, based upon changes in Brazilian tax law, the Company filed petitions in three of the actions requesting that the penalty portion of the claim be removed. The Brazilian tax authority agreed with the Company’s position and reduced its claim in two of those actions in August 2024 and reduced its claim in the third in October 2024.

In July 2002, the Brazilian Federal Public Attorney filed a civil action against the federal government of Brazil, Laboratorios Wyeth-Whitehall Ltda. (the Brazilian subsidiary of the Seller) and the Company, as represented by its Brazilian subsidiary, in the 6th. Lower Federal Court in the City of São Paulo, seeking to annul an April 2000 decision by the Brazilian Board of Tax Appeals that found in favor of the Seller’s Brazilian subsidiary on the issue of whether it had incurred taxable capital gains as a result of the divestiture of Kolynos. The action seeks to make the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary jointly and severally liable for any tax due from the Seller’s Brazilian subsidiary. The case has been pending since 2002, and the Lower Federal Court has not issued a decision. Although there can be no assurances, management believes, based on the opinion of its Brazilian legal counsel, that it has strong legal grounds to contest the action and that the Company should ultimately prevail. The Company is challenging this action vigorously.

In December 2005, the Brazilian internal revenue authority issued to the Company’s Brazilian subsidiary a tax assessment with interest and any court-mandated fees of approximately $26, at the current exchange rate, based on a claim that certain purchases of U.S. Treasury bills by the subsidiary and their subsequent disposition during the period 2000 to 2001 were subject to a tax on foreign exchange transactions. The Company had been disputing the assessment within the internal revenue authority’s administrative appeals process. However, in November 2015, the Superior Chamber of Administrative Tax Appeals denied the Company’s final administrative appeal, and the Company has filed a lawsuit in the Brazilian federal court. In the event the Company is unsuccessful in this lawsuit, further appeals are available within the Brazilian federal courts. Although there can be no assurances, management believes, based on the opinion of its Brazilian legal counsel, that it has strong legal grounds to contest the tax assessment and that the Company should ultimately prevail. The Company is challenging this assessment vigorously. In addition, in April 2024, based upon changes in Brazilian tax law, the Company filed a petition in this matter requesting that the penalty portion of the claim be removed. The Brazilian tax authority agreed with the Company’s position and, in March 2025, reduced its claim in this matter.

Talcum Powder Matters

The Company has been named as a defendant in civil actions alleging that certain of its talcum powder products were contaminated with asbestos and/or caused mesothelioma and other cancers. Many of these actions involve a number of co-defendants from a variety of different industries, including suppliers of asbestos and manufacturers of products that, unlike the Company’s products, were designed to contain asbestos.

As of June 30, 2025, there were 384 individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United States, as compared to 349 cases as of March 31, 2025 and 308 cases as of December 31, 2024. During the three months ended June 30, 2025, 62 new cases were filed and 27 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal or settlement. During the six months ended June 30, 2025, 115 new cases were filed and 39 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal, settlement or dismissal by the court. The value of the settlements in the periods presented was not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to such periods’ results of operations. In March 2024, one case resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the Company after a trial. Plaintiffs appealed the jury’s verdict, and in the three months ended June 30, 2025, the parties reached a settlement of the matter for an amount that was not material.

A significant portion of the Company’s costs incurred in defending and resolving these claims has been, and the Company believes that a portion of the costs will continue to be, covered by insurance policies issued by several primary, excess and umbrella insurance carriers, subject to deductibles, exclusions, retentions, policy limits and insurance carrier insolvencies.

While the Company and its legal counsel believe that the Company has strong legal grounds to contest these cases and intends to challenge them vigorously, there can be no assurances regarding the ultimate resolution of these matters.

ERISA Matter

In June 2016, a lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “District Court”) against the Colgate-Palmolive Company Employee’ Retirement Income Plan (“Retirement Plan”), the Company and certain individuals claiming that residual annuity payments associated with a 2005 residual annuity amendment to the Retirement Plan were improperly calculated for certain Retirement Plan participants in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). The relief sought included recalculation of benefits, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees. This action was certified as a class action in July 2017. In July 2020, the District Court dismissed certain claims, and in August 2020 granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on the remaining claims. In September 2020, the Company appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (“Second Circuit”). In March 2023, the Second Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs. Also, in June 2023, the plaintiffs filed a motion to enter a revised final judgment in the District Court to address certain unresolved calculation issues, which the Company opposed. In March 2024, the District Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion and found for the plaintiffs on those calculation issues. The Company appealed this decision to the Second Circuit and, in April 2025, the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision.

Following the Second Circuit decisions, the Company recorded charges to earnings of $267 in the quarter ended March 31, 2023 and $65 in the quarter ended March 31, 2025 to reflect the then current estimated increase in pension plan liability and other related costs. In the three months ended June 30, 2025, the parties agreed to a settlement in principle to fully resolve the litigation, which is subject to court approval, in an amount equal to the previously recorded charges. The litigation resulted in an increase in the obligations of the Retirement Plan and, based on the current funded status of the Retirement Plan, will require immaterial cash contributions by the Company in 2025.