Alzaidi v. Procter & Gamble Co.

On May 28, 2025, consumers filed five greenwashing class actions in several federal district courts against Procter & Gamble Company (P&G), the manufacturer of Charmin Toilet Paper and Puffs Tissues. The complaints—filed by plaintiffs in California (this case), <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/dean-v-procter-gamble-co/">Illinois</a>, <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/giarrizzo-v-procter-gamble-co/">Massachusetts</a>, <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/dupont-v-procter-gamble-co/">Minnesota</a>, and <a href="https://climatecasechart.com/case/willis-v-procter-gamble-co/">New York</a>—alleged that P&G deceptively marketed itself as committed to protecting, regrowing, and restoring primary forests such as the Canadian boreal forest while remaining “complicit in the clearcutting of untouched ancient primary forests” to sell its products. The lawsuits claimed that these representations, which were prominently displayed on the product’s packaging and advertising, were designed to mislead environmentally conscious consumers into believing that P&G products were sustainably sourced. In particular, the complaints highlighted P&G’s use of advertising campaigns like “Keep Forests as Forests” and “Protect-Grow-Restore” messaging. The complaints emphasized the critical importance of preserving boreal forests due to their capacity to store large quantities of carbon in their soil and peat, “making them one of the largest terrestrial carbon sinks on Earth.” The plaintiffs alleged that disturbances to these ecosystems could have far-reaching global consequences. The complaints alleged that although P&G is not engaging in “deforestation,” its actions constitute “forest degradation,” which can be “equally devastating to the long-term health of primary forests,” including biodiversity, carbon storage, and ecosystem health. Under its “Protect” messaging, P&G allegedly implied that its tissue products were environmentally responsible because they used pulp certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). However, the complaints asserted that P&G failed to disclose its reliance on suppliers engaged in industrial logging practices such as clearcutting and burning. Plaintiffs further argued that P&G’s use of FSC and Rainforest Alliance logos is misleading, noting that only a small portion of its pulp is FSC-certified and that the Rainforest Alliance, which ceased its certification program years earlier, also never operated in Canada’s boreal forest. Under the “Grow” component, P&G claimed that for every tree harvested, two are planted. Plaintiffs argued that this too is deceptive, as the replanting often consists of chemically treated monoculture conifers grown for future logging, creating artificial “tree farms” rather than restoring natural forest ecosystems. The “Restore” promise—highlighting P&G’s partnership with the Arbor Day Foundation to plant one million trees—was similarly criticized as a token gesture. The complaints noted that such efforts cover less than 1% of the area logged annually in Canada’s boreal forest and do not amount to meaningful ecosystem restoration. The complaints asserted that these representations violate the Federal Trade Commission’s Green Guides and various state consumer protection laws, including deceptive practices and fraudulent concealment laws. The plaintiffs sought class certification and asserted claims on behalf of nationwide and state-specific classes. They requested injunctive relief to halt the misleading marketing practices, along with restitution, compensatory damages, punitive damages, disgorgement, and attorneys’ fees. They also sought an order requiring P&G to pay both pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded.