Consumers accuse Procter & Gamble of misleading environmental claims regarding the sourcing of its Charmin toilet paper. A new class action lawsuit alleges that P&G’s claims about sustainable forestry practices are deceptive, given the company’s reliance on wood pulp from the Canadian boreal forest. The plaintiffs argue that P&G’s logging practices, such as clear-cutting and burning, contradict its public commitment to environmental protection, exemplified by campaigns like “Keep Forests as Forests” and the “Protect-Grow-Restore” logo on Charmin packaging.
The lawsuit further challenges the presence of Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Rainforest Alliance logos on Charmin products. Plaintiffs contend that the use of FSC-certified pulp is minimal and that the Rainforest Alliance no longer offers a relevant certification program. These misleading representations, the lawsuit argues, violate the U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides, designed to prevent deceptive environmental marketing, leading consumers to overpay for Charmin based on false pretenses.
The plaintiffs demand that Procter & Gamble be held responsible for what they term “egregious environmental destruction” and cease making misleading claims about its environmental stewardship. They seek restitution, compensatory and punitive damages for alleged violations of consumer protection laws in 28 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., along with an injunction against further deceptive environmental claims.
This lawsuit follows shareholder pressure on P&G to improve the sustainability of its forest product sourcing. Last month, the company pledged to increase transparency regarding its wood-pulp supplier audits by mid-2025. However, P&G has historically limited supply chain disclosures, citing competitive concerns. The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington (case number 25-00108), is captioned Lowry et al v Proctor & Gamble Co, misspelling the defendant’s name.
In conclusion, the lawsuit against Procter & Gamble highlights the increasing scrutiny of corporate environmental claims and the potential legal consequences of greenwashing. The outcome of this case could significantly impact P&G’s brand image and future sustainability practices. It also underscores the growing demand for transparency and accountability in corporate environmental responsibility.
