First of all, note that this is from the advertising website of a product, so it is going to selectively report results. Secondly ‘sperm damage’ or impaired sperm mobility is not the same as impaired fertility, as someone else has said. Someone with more medical expertise than the average poster would need to evaluate what these claims actually mean. It is a grey area to say the least.
I’m going to introduce some Catholic moral philosophy here - the dominant school of thought when questioning whether a moral law exists in Catholic teaching is called Probabiliorism, this says that we are bound to follow the more safe opinion unless the less safe opinion is more probable, where the question is whether a law has ceased to function. What is the law in this case - the law against artificial contraception. What is the cessation - whether an unintended consequence of a lubricant impeding sperm mobility is an instance of contraception. In the absence of a ruling from any legitimate authority, it is down to the individual conscience to judge whether the advertising blurb of a lube manufacturer establishes a more probable case for this being immoral than the absence of any warnings about lube in any of the major books on the Theology of the Body or any official clarification from the Magisterium.
It seems to me unlikely that this is a major issue, else someone would have ruled on it, either as a private theologian (Von Hildebrand, Christopher West) or as a dubium from one of the Vatican Congregations or in Bl John Paul II’s catechesis on the theology of the body. Since the studies quoted state that ‘saliva’ is one of the things that can kill sperm, we would have to look at what these theologians have said about oral stimulation as foreplay - almost universally, they do not condemn it. Presumably, if this is permitted, then so are commercially available non-sperimicidal lubes.
So, on the one hand, we have an advertiser selectively quoting studies, while making no actual claim that commercial lubes have a contraceptive effect, and on the other, we have complete silence from those who are involved in the study of Catholic sexual morality. What to make of that depends on your own conscience, but I personally don’t think it adds up to a more probable case against the permissibility of lube. I think this whole thing seems like scrupulosity or Jansenist Rigorism, we are not required to stop doing a morally neutral act just because of the remotest possibility of their being a law against it.
.
